Finerson v. Lang

Missouri Court of Appeals

Finerson v. Lang

502 S.W.3d 780, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2016 WL 6872076

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 22, 2016·No. ED 104420·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Finerson (“Plaintiff’) appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing his one count petition against Melissa Feath-erston and Featherston Law Firm (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), Section 407.010, et seq. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Anthony Finerson (“Plaintiff’) appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing his one count petition against Melissa Feath-erston and Featherston Law Firm (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), Section 407.010, et seq. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Finerson v. Lang, 502 S.W.3d 780, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2016 WL 6872076 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

502 S.W.3d 780 (Finerson v. Lang) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.