Harris v. BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL

195 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 2005

DocketED 85820

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.W.3d 1 (Harris v. BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL) 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

Harris v. BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL, 195 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joy Xavier Harris appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing her First Amended Petition for failure to state a claim in connection with her lawsuit for defamation arising out of: (1) a criminal background check performed by Missouri Hospital Association Management Services Corporation and Teamscreen Solution, L.L.C. at the request of her prospective employer, Barnes-Jewish Hospital; and (2) a garnishment sought by Protestant Memorial Medical Center and served on Barnes-Jewish to obtain payment for medical costs ostensibly incurred by Ms. Harris.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

Joy Xavier Harris appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing her First Amended Petition for failure to state a claim in connection with her lawsuit for defamation arising out of: (1) a criminal background check performed by Missouri Hospital Association Management Services Corporation and Teamscreen Solution, L.L.C. at the request of her prospective employer, Barnes-Jewish Hospital; and (2) a garnishment sought by Protestant Memorial Medical Center and served on Barnes-Jewish to obtain payment for medical costs ostensibly incurred by Ms. Harris.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-barnes-jewish-hospital-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack