DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC v. Blazier

Missouri Court of Appeals

DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC v. Blazier

525 S.W.3d 600, 2017 WL 3594391, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 815

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

DocketWD 79543

StatusPublished

This text of 525 S.W.3d 600 (DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC v. Blazier) 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

DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC v. Blazier, 525 S.W.3d 600, 2017 WL 3594391, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 815 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Blazier appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit .Court of Morgan County, which ruled in favor of Respondent DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC in its replevin action to recover possession of a backhoe. Blazier argues that the circuit court erroneously concluded that DMP Ozark had established a right to possession based on its purported purchase of the backhoe at a foreclosure sale. Blazier also argues that the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to disqualify DMP Ozark’s, counsel. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Blazier appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit .Court of Morgan County, which ruled in favor of Respondent DMP Ozark Capital Partners, LLC in its replevin action to recover possession of a backhoe. Blazier argues that the circuit court erroneously concluded that DMP Ozark had established a right to possession based on its purported purchase of the backhoe at a foreclosure sale. Blazier also argues that the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to disqualify DMP Ozark’s, counsel. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.3d 600, 2017 WL 3594391, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dmp-ozark-capital-partners-llc-v-blazier-moctapp-2017.