Carnell v. Menz

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carnell v. Menz

495 S.W.3d 210, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2016 WL 4040105

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 2016

DocketED 103473

StatusPublished

This text of 495 S.W.3d 210 (Carnell v. Menz) 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

Carnell v. Menz, 495 S.W.3d 210, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2016 WL 4040105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[211]*211ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty J. Menz and Jerri L. Menz.(col-lectively, “Appellants”), husband1 and wife, appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting their neighbor Brenda CarnelTs (“Respondent”) Second Amended Petition for trespass and ejectment over an eight-foot wide patch of land. We affirm. . .

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to’ Rule 84.16(b).

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

[211]*211ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty J. Menz and Jerri L. Menz.(col-lectively, “Appellants”), husband1 and wife, appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting their neighbor Brenda CarnelTs (“Respondent”) Second Amended Petition for trespass and ejectment over an eight-foot wide patch of land. We affirm. . .

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to’ Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 S.W.3d 210, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2016 WL 4040105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnell-v-menz-moctapp-2016.