Ellis v. Friedman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ellis v. Friedman

178 S.W.3d 714, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1968, 2005 WL 2851533

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2005

DocketNo. ED 86050

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 S.W.3d 714 (Ellis v. Friedman) 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

Ellis v. Friedman, 178 S.W.3d 714, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1968, 2005 WL 2851533 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Carl A. Ellis (“Ellis”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents, C. Marshall Friedman, individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C. (collectively “Friedman”). Ellis had filed a petition against Friedman alleging breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. We find that Ellis’s claims are barred by res judicata because Ellis impermissibly split his causes of action. See Felling v. Giles, 47 S.W.3d 390 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, 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.

Appellant, Carl A. Ellis (“Ellis”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents, C. Marshall Friedman, individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C. (collectively “Friedman”). Ellis had filed a petition against Friedman alleging breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. We find that Ellis’s claims are barred by res judicata because Ellis impermissibly split his causes of action. See Felling v. Giles, 47 S.W.3d 390 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.W.3d 714, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1968, 2005 WL 2851533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-friedman-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack