Eddy v. Armstrong

283 S.W.3d 300, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 640, 2009 WL 1383609
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 19, 2009·No. ED 91257·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment in defendant’s favor in an action for money had and received. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied.

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

Eddy v. Armstrong, 283 S.W.3d 300, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 640, 2009 WL 1383609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

283 S.W.3d 300 (Eddy v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Buckner
283 S.W.3d 300 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)