Gallagher v. 283684 C & J RENTAL, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gallagher v. 283684 C & J RENTAL, INC.

233 S.W.3d 770, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1301, 2007 WL 2769481

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 89256

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 770 (Gallagher v. 283684 C & J RENTAL, INC.) 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

Gallagher v. 283684 C & J RENTAL, INC., 233 S.W.3d 770, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1301, 2007 WL 2769481 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Barbara Goerss, Annetta Rainey, and the survivors of Josephine Gallagher and Barbara Sandheinrich, appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing their “Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” against the defendants, 283684 C & J Rental, Inc., d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental, Inc., Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., and Barbara Hantak and its order denying the plaintiffs leave to file an amended petition. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Barbara Goerss, Annetta Rainey, and the survivors of Josephine Gallagher and Barbara Sandheinrich, appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing their “Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” against the defendants, 283684 C & J Rental, Inc., d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental, Inc., Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., and Barbara Hantak and its order denying the plaintiffs leave to file an amended petition. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 770, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1301, 2007 WL 2769481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-283684-c-j-rental-inc-moctapp-2007.