Hemmel v. Ungashick

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hemmel v. Ungashick

533 S.W.3d 279

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

DocketWD 80273

StatusPublished

This text of 533 S.W.3d 279 (Hemmel v. Ungashick) 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 S.W.3d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemmel-v-ungashick-moctapp-2017.