Hanson v. Carroll-Kehoe

886 S.W.2d 163, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1645, 1994 WL 583916
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 1994·No. No. 65126·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and trial court judgment for defendant in a negligence case. The verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 692[15, 16] (Mo. banc 1993).

An opinion reciting the detaüed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

[164]*164We affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Hanson v. Carroll-Kehoe, 886 S.W.2d 163, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1645, 1994 WL 583916 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

886 S.W.2d 163 (Hanson v. Carroll-Kehoe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission
859 S.W.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1993)