Heifetz v. NOVELLY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Heifetz v. NOVELLY

309 S.W.3d 333, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 114, 2010 WL 444879

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 2010

DocketED 92561

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 S.W.3d 333 (Heifetz v. NOVELLY) 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

Heifetz v. NOVELLY, 309 S.W.3d 333, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 114, 2010 WL 444879 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary S. Heifetz (Heifetz), James E. Chervitz (Chervitz), Jeffrey S. Gershman (Gershman), Jeffrey Michelman (Michel-man), Steven P. Spewak (Spewak), Sidney L. Stone (S.L. Stone), and Steven M. Stone (S.M. Stone) (collectively Plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Paul A. Novelly and Apex Clayton, Inc., (Defendants) on Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and declaratory relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04(c). 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 forth our reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s award of summary 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.

Gary S. Heifetz (Heifetz), James E. Chervitz (Chervitz), Jeffrey S. Gershman (Gershman), Jeffrey Michelman (Michel-man), Steven P. Spewak (Spewak), Sidney L. Stone (S.L. Stone), and Steven M. Stone (S.M. Stone) (collectively Plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Paul A. Novelly and Apex Clayton, Inc., (Defendants) on Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and declaratory relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04(c). 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 forth our reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s award of summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.3d 333, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 114, 2010 WL 444879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heifetz-v-novelly-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack