East v. Earls

Missouri Court of Appeals

East v. Earls

548 S.W.3d 452

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketWD 80788

StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.W.3d 452 (East v. Earls) 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

East v. Earls, 548 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

Byron East appeals the circuit court's judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Alan Earls, Jay Cassady, Donna Cayer, Raina Martin, Jackie Petri, Laura Sanning, and Hugh Kirkley. He contends the court erred in determining that his petition failed to state a claim for conversion and in failing to advise that he could amend the petition. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam

Byron East appeals the circuit court's judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Alan Earls, Jay Cassady, Donna Cayer, Raina Martin, Jackie Petri, Laura Sanning, and Hugh Kirkley. He contends the court erred in determining that his petition failed to state a claim for conversion and in failing to advise that he could amend the petition. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-v-earls-moctapp-2018.