Graham v. TELLE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Graham v. TELLE

293 S.W.3d 453, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 923, 2008 WL 2651876

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

DocketED 90414

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 S.W.3d 453 (Graham v. TELLE) 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

Graham v. TELLE, 293 S.W.3d 453, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 923, 2008 WL 2651876 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jim Graham appeals the judgment of the trial court sustaining Charles Telle’s motion for a directed verdict on Graham’s breach of contract claim. We find that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Telle. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jim Graham appeals the judgment of the trial court sustaining Charles Telle’s motion for a directed verdict on Graham’s breach of contract claim. We find that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Telle. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W.3d 453, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 923, 2008 WL 2651876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-telle-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack