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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

DocketED 92384

StatusPublished

This text of 299 S.W.3d 32 (Bauer v. OMR CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 S.W.3d 32, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2009 WL 3834064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauer-v-omr-corporation-moctapp-2009.