DITTMAIER v. Hemphill

Missouri Court of Appeals

DITTMAIER v. Hemphill

178 S.W.3d 593, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2005 WL 2208586

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2005

DocketED 84804

StatusPublished

This text of 178 S.W.3d 593 (DITTMAIER v. Hemphill) 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

DITTMAIER v. Hemphill, 178 S.W.3d 593, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2005 WL 2208586 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Dittmaier (Dittmaier) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of Earlene Hemphill (Hemphill) on Dittmaier’s claim for negligence per se premises liability. Dittmaier claims the trial court erred in its giving of two jury instructions.

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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. Judgment affirmed in accordance with 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Dittmaier (Dittmaier) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of Earlene Hemphill (Hemphill) on Dittmaier’s claim for negligence per se premises liability. Dittmaier claims the trial court erred in its giving of two jury instructions.

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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. Judgment affirmed in accordance with 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.W.3d 593, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2005 WL 2208586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dittmaier-v-hemphill-moctapp-2005.