Engel v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Engel v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo.

557 S.W.3d 407

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2018

DocketWD 81016

StatusPublished

This text of 557 S.W.3d 407 (Engel v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo.) 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

Engel v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 557 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*408Dr. Thomas Engel appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the Curators of the University of Missouri, Dr. Noah Manring, Dr. James Thompson, and Dr. Scott Kovaleski (collectively Defendants) on Engel's claims against them for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory judgment, tortious interference with contract, and violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 USC 1983. He raises five points on appeal challenging the trial court's grant of Defendants' various motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

*408Dr. Thomas Engel appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the Curators of the University of Missouri, Dr. Noah Manring, Dr. James Thompson, and Dr. Scott Kovaleski (collectively Defendants) on Engel's claims against them for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory judgment, tortious interference with contract, and violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 USC 1983. He raises five points on appeal challenging the trial court's grant of Defendants' various motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 S.W.3d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engel-v-curators-of-the-univ-of-mo-moctapp-2018.