Bauer v. OMR CORPORATION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bauer v. OMR CORPORATION

299 S.W.3d 32, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2009 WL 3834064

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 17, 2009·No. ED 92384·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy and Catherine Bauer (Plaintiffs) appeal pro se the trial court’s judgment denying them motion to disqualify the trial judge, Hon. David L. Dowd, and dismissing their petition against OMR Corporation (Respondent).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy and Catherine Bauer (Plaintiffs) appeal pro se the trial court’s judgment denying them motion to disqualify the trial judge, Hon. David L. Dowd, and dismissing their petition against OMR Corporation (Respondent).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bauer v. OMR CORPORATION, 299 S.W.3d 32, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2009 WL 3834064 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

299 S.W.3d 32 (Bauer v. OMR CORPORATION) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.