Detmer v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Detmer v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc.

313 S.W.3d 712, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 801, 2010 WL 2379071

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2010

DocketED 93368

StatusPublished

This text of 313 S.W.3d 712 (Detmer v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc.) 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

Detmer v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 313 S.W.3d 712, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 801, 2010 WL 2379071 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis, Inc., (Old Republic) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Gary Detmer and Bennington Commons, LLC, (referred to collectively as Detmer) on Detmer’s petition alleging breach of contract 1 .

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Detmer's petition initially alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, but only the breach-of-contract claim was submitted to the jury.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis, Inc., (Old Republic) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Gary Detmer and Bennington Commons, LLC, (referred to collectively as Detmer) on Detmer’s petition alleging breach of contract 1 .

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Detmer's petition initially alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, but only the breach-of-contract claim was submitted to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.W.3d 712, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 801, 2010 WL 2379071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detmer-v-old-republic-title-co-of-st-louis-inc-moctapp-2010.