Harris v. ROY'S TRANSMISSION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. ROY'S TRANSMISSION

219 S.W.3d 777, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2007 WL 1052666

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2007

DocketED 87921

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.W.3d 777 (Harris v. ROY'S TRANSMISSION) 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. ROY'S TRANSMISSION, 219 S.W.3d 777, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2007 WL 1052666 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roy’s Transmission and Enterprises, Inc. (“Roy’s Transmission”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court entered against it for interference with easement rights. Roy’s Transmission claims four points on appeal. First, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred by entering judgment for the plaintiff, Richard Harris (“Harris”), because the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. Second, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred in allowing Harris to elicit an opinion from John Grimm (“Grimm”) and use the opinion as a basis for damages because Grimm was not an expert. Third, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred in granting judgment for Harris due to laches. Fourth, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred by awarding Harris excessive damages for loss of rent because Harris failed to take steps to mitigate his damages.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Roy’s Transmission and Enterprises, Inc. (“Roy’s Transmission”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court entered against it for interference with easement rights. Roy’s Transmission claims four points on appeal. First, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred by entering judgment for the plaintiff, Richard Harris (“Harris”), because the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. Second, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred in allowing Harris to elicit an opinion from John Grimm (“Grimm”) and use the opinion as a basis for damages because Grimm was not an expert. Third, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred in granting judgment for Harris due to laches. Fourth, Roy’s Transmission claims that the trial court erred by awarding Harris excessive damages for loss of rent because Harris failed to take steps to mitigate his damages.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 777, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2007 WL 1052666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-roys-transmission-moctapp-2007.