Hoover v. Wilson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hoover v. Wilson

297 S.W.3d 931, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1739, 2009 WL 4572856

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 8, 2009·No. WD 70423·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

William Hoover appeals the dismissal of his “petition for damages in bailment” against two Department of Corrections officials. On appeal, Hoover argues that the allegations in his petition sufficiently overcame the defendants’ various claims of immunity. After reviewing Hoover’s petition, construing all of the pleaded facts in the light most favorable to Hoover, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the case. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal writ *932 ten opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

William Hoover appeals the dismissal of his “petition for damages in bailment” against two Department of Corrections officials. On appeal, Hoover argues that the allegations in his petition sufficiently overcame the defendants’ various claims of immunity. After reviewing Hoover’s petition, construing all of the pleaded facts in the light most favorable to Hoover, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the case. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal writ *932 ten opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Hoover v. Wilson, 297 S.W.3d 931, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1739, 2009 WL 4572856 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

297 S.W.3d 931 (Hoover v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related