Duvall v. Lynch

Missouri Court of Appeals

Duvall v. Lynch

247 S.W.3d 32, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 272, 2008 WL 564139

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

DocketED 89787

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.W.3d 32 (Duvall v. Lynch) 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

Duvall v. Lynch, 247 S.W.3d 32, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 272, 2008 WL 564139 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Duvall, David Duvall, and John Duvall (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellant”) appeal pro se from the trial court’s judgment dismissing their petition against Sindel, Sindel, & Noble, P.C., John M. Lynch, and Matthew Zavac (hereinafter and collectively, “Respondent”) with prejudice. Appellant raises six points on appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition without granting Appellant leave to amend.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant’s claims against Respondent. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Duvall, David Duvall, and John Duvall (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellant”) appeal pro se from the trial court’s judgment dismissing their petition against Sindel, Sindel, & Noble, P.C., John M. Lynch, and Matthew Zavac (hereinafter and collectively, “Respondent”) with prejudice. Appellant raises six points on appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition without granting Appellant leave to amend.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant’s claims against Respondent. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 32, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 272, 2008 WL 564139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duvall-v-lynch-moctapp-2008.