Furry v. Estate of Nolie

Missouri Court of Appeals

Furry v. Estate of Nolie

892 S.W.2d 824, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 1995 WL 73385

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

DocketNo. 66060

StatusPublished

This text of 892 S.W.2d 824 (Furry v. Estate of Nolie) 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

Furry v. Estate of Nolie, 892 S.W.2d 824, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 1995 WL 73385 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice his petition for failure to prosecute. The case had been pending for seven years and had appeared previously on one dismissal docket and one pre-dismissal “status” docket. After the last requested continuance by plaintiff he had no request for trial setting for eight months and the case was again set on the dismissal docket and this time dismissed. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Belleville v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 825 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.banc 1992) [2-4], No error of law appears and the judgment of the court is supported by substantial evidence. An opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice his petition for failure to prosecute. The case had been pending for seven years and had appeared previously on one dismissal docket and one pre-dismissal “status” docket. After the last requested continuance by plaintiff he had no request for trial setting for eight months and the case was again set on the dismissal docket and this time dismissed. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Belleville v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 825 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.banc 1992) [2-4], No error of law appears and the judgment of the court is supported by substantial evidence. An opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 S.W.2d 824, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 1995 WL 73385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furry-v-estate-of-nolie-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack