HOME SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Westmoreland

Missouri Court of Appeals

HOME SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Westmoreland

180 S.W.3d 44, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1894, 2005 WL 3466043

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85223

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W.3d 44 (HOME SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Westmoreland) 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

HOME SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Westmoreland, 180 S.W.3d 44, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1894, 2005 WL 3466043 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant Louis Westmore-land, et al., (‘Westmoreland”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, after a jury found for Plaintiff-Respondent Home Service Oil Company (“Home Service”) in its claim for monetary damages against Westmoreland arising from an alleged breach of contract. In addition, the jury found for Home Service on Westmoreland’s counterclaim for damages arising from alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with a contract.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

In addition, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Phillips Petroleum Company’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. However, Phillips’ motion for costs is hereby denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant Louis Westmore-land, et al., (‘Westmoreland”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, after a jury found for Plaintiff-Respondent Home Service Oil Company (“Home Service”) in its claim for monetary damages against Westmoreland arising from an alleged breach of contract. In addition, the jury found for Home Service on Westmoreland’s counterclaim for damages arising from alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with a contract.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

In addition, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Phillips Petroleum Company’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. However, Phillips’ motion for costs is hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 44, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1894, 2005 WL 3466043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-service-oil-company-v-westmoreland-moctapp-2005.