BYRON PARTNERS, LLC v. McMillen

Missouri Court of Appeals

BYRON PARTNERS, LLC v. McMillen

315 S.W.3d 403, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 951, 2010 WL 2749640

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 2010

DocketED 93470

StatusPublished

This text of 315 S.W.3d 403 (BYRON PARTNERS, LLC v. McMillen) 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

BYRON PARTNERS, LLC v. McMillen, 315 S.W.3d 403, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 951, 2010 WL 2749640 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Byron Partners, LLC (“Byron Partners”), appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants, Robert and Teresa McMillen (collectively referred to as “the McMillens”), on Byron Partners’ claim for unlawful detainer. Byron Partners argues the trial court: (1) erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of Robert Andel (“An-del”); (2) erroneously declared or applied Missouri’s unlawful detainer statutes; and (3) erred because its verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Byron Partners, LLC (“Byron Partners”), appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants, Robert and Teresa McMillen (collectively referred to as “the McMillens”), on Byron Partners’ claim for unlawful detainer. Byron Partners argues the trial court: (1) erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of Robert Andel (“An-del”); (2) erroneously declared or applied Missouri’s unlawful detainer statutes; and (3) erred because its verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 S.W.3d 403, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 951, 2010 WL 2749640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byron-partners-llc-v-mcmillen-moctapp-2010.