Blankenships-Yep v. Heyl Truck Lines

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blankenships-Yep v. Heyl Truck Lines

481 S.W.3d 891, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 118, 2016 WL 615795

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102797

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 891 (Blankenships-Yep v. Heyl Truck Lines) 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

Blankenships-Yep v. Heyl Truck Lines, 481 S.W.3d 891, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 118, 2016 WL 615795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Heyl Truck Lines (Heyl) appeals from the judgment granting Ariel Blankenship-Yep’s (Driver’s) motion for new trial, following, a jury verdict in' favor of Heyl and against Driver on - her .negligence claims resulting from an automobile .collision involving a tractor-trailer owned and operated by Heyl. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The decision and order of the trial court is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for ourt decision. We. affirm the judgment 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

Heyl Truck Lines (Heyl) appeals from the judgment granting Ariel Blankenship-Yep’s (Driver’s) motion for new trial, following, a jury verdict in' favor of Heyl and against Driver on - her .negligence claims resulting from an automobile .collision involving a tractor-trailer owned and operated by Heyl. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The decision and order of the trial court is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for ourt decision. We. affirm the judgment pursuant, to Rule 84.16(b). ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 891, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 118, 2016 WL 615795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenships-yep-v-heyl-truck-lines-moctapp-2016.