Cook v. Arnot

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cook v. Arnot

826 S.W.2d 112, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 626, 1992 WL 78695

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 14, 1992·No. No. 60330·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Doctor appeals a jury verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 in a suit for personal injuries resulting from Doctor’s medical treatment. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming 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.

Defendant Doctor appeals a jury verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 in a suit for personal injuries resulting from Doctor’s medical treatment. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cook v. Arnot, 826 S.W.2d 112, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 626, 1992 WL 78695 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

826 S.W.2d 112 (Cook v. Arnot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.