GLICK FINLEY, LLC v. Glick

Missouri Court of Appeals

GLICK FINLEY, LLC v. Glick

254 S.W.3d 105, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 336, 2008 WL 708499

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

DocketED 89696

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 105 (GLICK FINLEY, LLC v. Glick) 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

GLICK FINLEY, LLC v. Glick, 254 S.W.3d 105, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 336, 2008 WL 708499 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Karen I. Finley (hereinafter, “Finley”) and Glick Finley, LLC (hereinafter, “the Firm” and collectively as “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting Thomas G. Glick’s (hereinafter, “Glick”) counterclaim/cross-claim requesting the involuntary dissolution of the Firm and the appointment of a receiver. Appellants raise three points on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s judgment 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.

Karen I. Finley (hereinafter, “Finley”) and Glick Finley, LLC (hereinafter, “the Firm” and collectively as “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting Thomas G. Glick’s (hereinafter, “Glick”) counterclaim/cross-claim requesting the involuntary dissolution of the Firm and the appointment of a receiver. Appellants raise three points on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 105, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 336, 2008 WL 708499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glick-finley-llc-v-glick-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack