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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103750

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 97 (Higginbotham v. United Parcel Service, Inc.) 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 97, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higginbotham-v-united-parcel-service-inc-moctapp-2016.