Gubernik v. Steinberg

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gubernik v. Steinberg

842 S.W.2d 587, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1937, 1992 WL 382676

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 29, 1992·No. No. 61973·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition which attempted to allege malpractice by his former attorneys. We affirm. No error of law appears and 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 affirming the 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.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition which attempted to allege malpractice by his former attorneys. We affirm. No error of law appears and 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Gubernik v. Steinberg, 842 S.W.2d 587, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1937, 1992 WL 382676 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

842 S.W.2d 587 (Gubernik v. Steinberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.