Epstein v. Thompson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Epstein v. Thompson

289 S.W.3d 662, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2009 WL 1120163

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 28, 2009

DocketED 92206

StatusPublished

This text of 289 S.W.3d 662 (Epstein v. Thompson) 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

Epstein v. Thompson, 289 S.W.3d 662, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2009 WL 1120163 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

M. Gary Epstein ("Epstein") appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss of Marion Thompson ("Thompson") and American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American Family"). Epstein argues the trial court erred in dismissing his negli-genee claim against Thompson, and in dismissing his bad faith, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence claims against American Family.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating 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. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

M. Gary Epstein ("Epstein") appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss of Marion Thompson ("Thompson") and American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American Family"). Epstein argues the trial court erred in dismissing his negli-genee claim against Thompson, and in dismissing his bad faith, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence claims against American Family.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating 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. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.W.3d 662, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2009 WL 1120163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-thompson-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack