Hemmel v. Ungashick

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hemmel v. Ungashick

533 S.W.3d 279

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 2017·No. WD 80273·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Luke Ungashick and Automated Ingredient Systems, LLC appeal the Amended Judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court. They present four points on appeal. First, they claim the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds. Second, they claim the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Third, they claim the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees was beyond the scope set forth in the contract at issue. Fourth, they claim they should be indemnified. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Luke Ungashick and Automated Ingredient Systems, LLC appeal the Amended Judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court. They present four points on appeal. First, they claim the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds. Second, they claim the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Third, they claim the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees was beyond the scope set forth in the contract at issue. Fourth, they claim they should be indemnified. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Hemmel v. Ungashick, 533 S.W.3d 279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

533 S.W.3d 279 (Hemmel v. Ungashick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.