Fallert v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fallert v. Smith

203 S.W.3d 234, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1386, 2006 WL 2671355

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 19, 2006·No. No. ED 87722·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Terry Fallert (“Faller”) appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Kenneth Smith, M.D. (“Dr. Smith”), on her petition for abandonment. Fallert contends the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dr. Smith abandoned her following the surgery he performed on Fallert.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Dr. Smith was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commerical Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 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.

Plaintiff Terry Fallert (“Faller”) appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Kenneth Smith, M.D. (“Dr. Smith”), on her petition for abandonment. Fallert contends the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dr. Smith abandoned her following the surgery he performed on Fallert.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Dr. Smith was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commerical Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 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).

Fallert v. Smith, 203 S.W.3d 234, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1386, 2006 WL 2671355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

203 S.W.3d 234 (Fallert v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related