Garry v. Conley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Garry v. Conley

990 S.W.2d 697, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 1999 WL 301225

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1999

DocketNo. 74685

StatusPublished

This text of 990 S.W.2d 697 (Garry v. Conley) 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

Garry v. Conley, 990 S.W.2d 697, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 1999 WL 301225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Nathan Conley appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff, finding Defendant to be 100 percent at fault in an automobile accident with Plaintiffs daughter and awarding Plaintiff property damages of $3,500. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Crawford v. Detr-ing, 965 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998).

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the [698]*698use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Nathan Conley appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff, finding Defendant to be 100 percent at fault in an automobile accident with Plaintiffs daughter and awarding Plaintiff property damages of $3,500. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Crawford v. Detr-ing, 965 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998).

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the [698]*698use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 S.W.2d 697, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 1999 WL 301225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garry-v-conley-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack