Hammelman v. Wintergreen Development

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hammelman v. Wintergreen Development

200 S.W.3d 114, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2006 WL 1677853

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2006

DocketED 87126

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.W.3d 114 (Hammelman v. Wintergreen Development) 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

Hammelman v. Wintergreen Development, 200 S.W.3d 114, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2006 WL 1677853 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Hammelman (Hammelman) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wintergreen Development (Wintergreen) in Hammel-man’s action for damages in connection with a real estate sales contract.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. 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 *115 forth the reasons for our decision. Judgment affirmed in accordance with 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Hammelman (Hammelman) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wintergreen Development (Wintergreen) in Hammel-man’s action for damages in connection with a real estate sales contract.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. 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 *115 forth the reasons for our decision. Judgment affirmed in accordance with 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.W.3d 114, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2006 WL 1677853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammelman-v-wintergreen-development-moctapp-2006.