Buttrey v. Boardwine

Missouri Court of Appeals

Buttrey v. Boardwine

159 S.W.3d 847, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1039, 2005 WL 147420

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

DocketED 84076, ED 84276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 S.W.3d 847 (Buttrey v. Boardwine) 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

Buttrey v. Boardwine, 159 S.W.3d 847, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1039, 2005 WL 147420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal arises out of plaintiffs’ actions brought against a surgeon, a hospital, and a medical-device manufacturer. As to their action against Dr. Boardwine, the plaintiffs allege the trial court erred (1) by denying their motion to strike for cause venireman Everding; and (2) in submitting a withdrawal instruction. As to their action against defendant Mineral Area Regional Medical Center, the plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligent credentialing claims against defendant. As to defendant Sulzer Spine-Tech Surgical, Inc., plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiffs’ claim for negligent en-trustment.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal arises out of plaintiffs’ actions brought against a surgeon, a hospital, and a medical-device manufacturer. As to their action against Dr. Boardwine, the plaintiffs allege the trial court erred (1) by denying their motion to strike for cause venireman Everding; and (2) in submitting a withdrawal instruction. As to their action against defendant Mineral Area Regional Medical Center, the plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligent credentialing claims against defendant. As to defendant Sulzer Spine-Tech Surgical, Inc., plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiffs’ claim for negligent en-trustment.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.W.3d 847, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1039, 2005 WL 147420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buttrey-v-boardwine-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack