Howard v. Elliott

Missouri Court of Appeals

Howard v. Elliott

282 S.W.3d 882, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 479, 2009 WL 983122

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 2009

DocketED 91122

StatusPublished

This text of 282 S.W.3d 882 (Howard v. Elliott) 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

Howard v. Elliott, 282 S.W.3d 882, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 479, 2009 WL 983122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Mary Elliot, appeals from a St. Louis City Circuit Court judgment awarding John Howard, the respondent, $69,000 in damages for his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims related to the purchase and rehabilitation of 1808 *883 and 1806 Kennett Place. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the respondent to amend his pleadings and in denying the appellant’s motion to reopen her case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Mary Elliot, appeals from a St. Louis City Circuit Court judgment awarding John Howard, the respondent, $69,000 in damages for his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims related to the purchase and rehabilitation of 1808 *883 and 1806 Kennett Place. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the respondent to amend his pleadings and in denying the appellant’s motion to reopen her case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.W.3d 882, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 479, 2009 WL 983122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-elliott-moctapp-2009.