Eades v. Maritz, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Eades v. Maritz, Inc.

83 S.W.3d 632, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1385, 2002 WL 1365713

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 25, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79441

StatusPublished

This text of 83 S.W.3d 632 (Eades v. Maritz, 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

Eades v. Maritz, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 632, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1385, 2002 WL 1365713 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul D. Eades (hereinafter, “Eades”) was employed by Maritz Inc. (hereinafter, “Maritz”) for twenty-one years. Eades was terminated in February 1995. Eades brought suit against Maritz claiming that he was wrongfully terminated because he would not misclassify independent contractors. Following a jury verdict, judgment was entered in favor of Eades. The trial court denied Maritz’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Eades presented a submissible case. Pace v. Pacific Fire Protection Dist., 945 S.W.2d 7, 8-9 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Paul D. Eades (hereinafter, “Eades”) was employed by Maritz Inc. (hereinafter, “Maritz”) for twenty-one years. Eades was terminated in February 1995. Eades brought suit against Maritz claiming that he was wrongfully terminated because he would not misclassify independent contractors. Following a jury verdict, judgment was entered in favor of Eades. The trial court denied Maritz’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Eades presented a submissible case. Pace v. Pacific Fire Protection Dist., 945 S.W.2d 7, 8-9 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.W.3d 632, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1385, 2002 WL 1365713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eades-v-maritz-inc-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack