Hensley v. URSULINE ACADEMY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hensley v. URSULINE ACADEMY

310 S.W.3d 712, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2010 WL 1408817

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 30, 2010·No. ED 93360·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Hensley appeals from the trial court’s grant of Ursuline Academy, Kirk-wood, Missouri’s motion for summary judgment on her petition for libel and slander. This Court has reviewed the Motion taken with the case. Respondent’s Motion *713 to Dismiss Appellant’s Appeal or Alternatively to Strike Portions of Appellant’s Brief is denied.

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.

Patricia Hensley appeals from the trial court’s grant of Ursuline Academy, Kirk-wood, Missouri’s motion for summary judgment on her petition for libel and slander. This Court has reviewed the Motion taken with the case. Respondent’s Motion *713 to Dismiss Appellant’s Appeal or Alternatively to Strike Portions of Appellant’s Brief is denied.

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).

Hensley v. URSULINE ACADEMY, 310 S.W.3d 712, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2010 WL 1408817 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

310 S.W.3d 712 (Hensley v. URSULINE ACADEMY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.