Green v. Stover

Missouri Court of Appeals

Green v. Stover

276 S.W.3d 394, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 72, 2009 WL 242237

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 2009

DocketED 91018

StatusPublished

This text of 276 S.W.3d 394 (Green v. Stover) 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

Green v. Stover, 276 S.W.3d 394, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 72, 2009 WL 242237 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Damon and Helen Sto-ver, appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County in favor of the plaintiffs, Barney and Jacqueline Green. The trial court granted a way of strict necessity (“the roadway”) to the Greens over the Stovers’ property, awarded the Stovers $7,500 in damages for the roadway, found that the Stovers had interfered with the Greens’ use of their court-ordered roadway, and awarded the Greens $5,000 as a result of the Stovers’ interference. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided *395 with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(1).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Damon and Helen Sto-ver, appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County in favor of the plaintiffs, Barney and Jacqueline Green. The trial court granted a way of strict necessity (“the roadway”) to the Greens over the Stovers’ property, awarded the Stovers $7,500 in damages for the roadway, found that the Stovers had interfered with the Greens’ use of their court-ordered roadway, and awarded the Greens $5,000 as a result of the Stovers’ interference. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided *395 with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 394, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 72, 2009 WL 242237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-stover-moctapp-2009.