Berk v. SCHLERETH

Missouri Court of Appeals

Berk v. SCHLERETH

245 S.W.3d 265, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 210, 2008 WL 375615

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketED 89504

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 S.W.3d 265 (Berk v. SCHLERETH) 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

Berk v. SCHLERETH, 245 S.W.3d 265, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 210, 2008 WL 375615 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Morris Berk and Rita Berk appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Jack Schlereth, Julie Christensen, and Thomas Finley. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Morris Berk and Rita Berk appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Jack Schlereth, Julie Christensen, and Thomas Finley. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 265, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 210, 2008 WL 375615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berk-v-schlereth-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack