Garner v. Reynolds

Missouri Court of Appeals

Garner v. Reynolds

415 S.W.3d 763, 2013 WL 6499395, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 10, 2013·No. No. ED 99899·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steve Garner appeals from the judgment entered against him on his claims for breach of contract against Rod Reynolds, individually, and Rod Reynolds doing business as M & N Automotive, LLC. Garner contends that the court erred when it set aside the default judgment that had been entered against the defendants as a result of discovery violations, dismissed his petition with prejudice and entered judgment against him after concluding that Garner failed to prove his entitlement to damages. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Steve Garner appeals from the judgment entered against him on his claims for breach of contract against Rod Reynolds, individually, and Rod Reynolds doing business as M & N Automotive, LLC. Garner contends that the court erred when it set aside the default judgment that had been entered against the defendants as a result of discovery violations, dismissed his petition with prejudice and entered judgment against him after concluding that Garner failed to prove his entitlement to damages. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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).

Garner v. Reynolds, 415 S.W.3d 763, 2013 WL 6499395, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

415 S.W.3d 763 (Garner v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.