Campise v. SOUTHLAND IMPORTS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Campise v. SOUTHLAND IMPORTS, INC.

350 S.W.3d 861, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1375, 2011 WL 4946774

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 18, 2011·No. ED 96307·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jack Campise (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal granted in favor of Southland Imports, Inc., d/b/a Suntrup Volkswagen (“Suntrap”), on his suit alleging violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), Sections 407.010-.309 RSMo 2000, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose *862 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.

Jack Campise (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal granted in favor of Southland Imports, Inc., d/b/a Suntrup Volkswagen (“Suntrap”), on his suit alleging violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), Sections 407.010-.309 RSMo 2000, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose *862 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).

Campise v. SOUTHLAND IMPORTS, INC., 350 S.W.3d 861, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1375, 2011 WL 4946774 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

350 S.W.3d 861 (Campise v. SOUTHLAND IMPORTS, INC.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.