Hill v. Keefe & Keefe, P.C.

256 S.W.3d 615, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2008 WL 2586380
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 2008·No. ED 90708·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carmen Hill (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis vacating a previous judgment and dismissing Appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in setting aside its own judgment, which vacated a final judgment rendered on May 17, 2007 and, dismissing her petition for lack of jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the *616 claims of error to be without merit. 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

Hill v. Keefe & Keefe, P.C., 256 S.W.3d 615, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2008 WL 2586380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

256 S.W.3d 615 (Hill v. Keefe & Keefe, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Springfield v. City of St. Louis
256 S.W.3d 615 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)