Fuller v. Sego

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fuller v. Sego

509 S.W.3d 804, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1077, 2016 WL 6208397

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 2016·No. WD 79018·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

George Fuller appeals pro se from the trial court’s judgment following a trial de novo on his small claims action. Fuller, an inmate at Crossroads Correctional Center, argues that the small claims court and the trial court erred in denying his writ for habeas corpus ad testificandum and failed to consider his request for any reasonable alternatives to personal appearance in court as required by sections 491.280 and 544.275, RSMo 2000. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

George Fuller appeals pro se from the trial court’s judgment following a trial de novo on his small claims action. Fuller, an inmate at Crossroads Correctional Center, argues that the small claims court and the trial court erred in denying his writ for habeas corpus ad testificandum and failed to consider his request for any reasonable alternatives to personal appearance in court as required by sections 491.280 and 544.275, RSMo 2000. 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).

Fuller v. Sego, 509 S.W.3d 804, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1077, 2016 WL 6208397 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

509 S.W.3d 804 (Fuller v. Sego) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.