Cronin v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cronin v. Johnson

313 S.W.3d 694, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 721, 2010 WL 2055560

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 2010

DocketED 93701

StatusPublished

This text of 313 S.W.3d 694 (Cronin v. Johnson) 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

Cronin v. Johnson, 313 S.W.3d 694, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 721, 2010 WL 2055560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James L. Cronin, Jr. d/b/a Hawk Distribution Services (Cronin) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting David Johnson Jr.’s (Johnson) and Commonwealth Group, L.C.’s (Commonwealth) motions to dismiss Cronin’s first amended petition. On appeal, Cronin claims the trial court erred in granting the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Cronin stated causes of action for breach of contract against Commonwealth and for tortious interference with contract against Johnson. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

James L. Cronin, Jr. d/b/a Hawk Distribution Services (Cronin) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting David Johnson Jr.’s (Johnson) and Commonwealth Group, L.C.’s (Commonwealth) motions to dismiss Cronin’s first amended petition. On appeal, Cronin claims the trial court erred in granting the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Cronin stated causes of action for breach of contract against Commonwealth and for tortious interference with contract against Johnson. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.W.3d 694, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 721, 2010 WL 2055560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cronin-v-johnson-moctapp-2010.