Curley v. Animal Clinic of Kendallwood

Missouri Court of Appeals

Curley v. Animal Clinic of Kendallwood

506 S.W.3d 414, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 14, 2017 WL 83531

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 2017·No. WD 78979·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Animal Clinic of Kendallwood, LLC and Dr. Randall Lary, its owner and operator, (collectively Defendants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment on the jury verdicts in favor of Jill Curley for both actual and punitive damages in Curley’s suit for sexual harassment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Defendants’ points on appeal challenge the trial court’s exclusion of evidence. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been presented to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Animal Clinic of Kendallwood, LLC and Dr. Randall Lary, its owner and operator, (collectively Defendants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment on the jury verdicts in favor of Jill Curley for both actual and punitive damages in Curley’s suit for sexual harassment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Defendants’ points on appeal challenge the trial court’s exclusion of evidence. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been presented to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Curley v. Animal Clinic of Kendallwood, 506 S.W.3d 414, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 14, 2017 WL 83531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

506 S.W.3d 414 (Curley v. Animal Clinic of Kendallwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.