Gershenson Construction Co. v. Ledcor Construction, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gershenson Construction Co. v. Ledcor Construction, Inc.

398 S.W.3d 527, 2013 WL 601128, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 199

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 19, 2013·No. No. ED 98220·Published

Opinion

[528] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ledcor Construction, Inc., (Ledcor) appeals from the trial court’s entry of an amended judgment in favor of Gershenson Construction Company, Inc., (Gershenson) on Gershenson’s petition alleging breach of contract and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, and on Gershenson’s claim for attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and costs. Gershenson cross-appeals with regard to the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Ledcor on the counts in Gershenson’s petition alleging quantum meruit, rescission and abandonment, and violation of the retainage act. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. 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

[528] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ledcor Construction, Inc., (Ledcor) appeals from the trial court’s entry of an amended judgment in favor of Gershenson Construction Company, Inc., (Gershenson) on Gershenson’s petition alleging breach of contract and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, and on Gershenson’s claim for attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and costs. Gershenson cross-appeals with regard to the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Ledcor on the counts in Gershenson’s petition alleging quantum meruit, rescission and abandonment, and violation of the retainage act. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. 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).

Gershenson Construction Co. v. Ledcor Construction, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 527, 2013 WL 601128, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

398 S.W.3d 527 (Gershenson Construction Co. v. Ledcor Construction, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.