Higginbotham v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Higginbotham v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 804

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 23, 2016·No. No. ED 103750·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Steven Higginbotham (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which after a bench trial entered judgment against him and in favor of United Parcel Service, Inc. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opiniqn for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

Steven Higginbotham (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which after a bench trial entered judgment against him and in favor of United Parcel Service, Inc. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opiniqn for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Higginbotham v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

504 S.W.3d 97 (Higginbotham v. United Parcel Service, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.