Daniel Schmitt & Co. v. Arcese

Missouri Court of Appeals

Daniel Schmitt & Co. v. Arcese

547 S.W.3d 823

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106091

StatusPublished

This text of 547 S.W.3d 823 (Daniel Schmitt & Co. v. Arcese) 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

Daniel Schmitt & Co. v. Arcese, 547 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Anthony Arcese filed action against Daniel Schmitt and Company ("DSC") alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial *824court granted summary judgment in favor of DSC on Arcese's claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of DSC and awarded DSC attorney's fees. Arcese appealed from the trial court's judgment, and this Court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees and court costs to DSC. Arcese v. Daniel Schmitt & Co., 504 S.W.3d 772, 790 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (" Arcese I").

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

PER CURIAM

Anthony Arcese filed action against Daniel Schmitt and Company ("DSC") alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial *824court granted summary judgment in favor of DSC on Arcese's claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of DSC and awarded DSC attorney's fees. Arcese appealed from the trial court's judgment, and this Court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees and court costs to DSC. Arcese v. Daniel Schmitt & Co., 504 S.W.3d 772, 790 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (" Arcese I").

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 S.W.3d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-schmitt-co-v-arcese-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack