Hupfeld v. Pinnon

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hupfeld v. Pinnon

878 S.W.2d 520, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1060, 1994 WL 283212

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 28, 1994·No. No. 64633·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Wayne Pinnon, appeals from the August 6, 1993, order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting summary judgment in favor of respondents, Robert E. and Patricia Hupfeld. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcript and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Wayne Pinnon, appeals from the August 6, 1993, order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting summary judgment in favor of respondents, Robert E. and Patricia Hupfeld. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcript and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Hupfeld v. Pinnon, 878 S.W.2d 520, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1060, 1994 WL 283212 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

878 S.W.2d 520 (Hupfeld v. Pinnon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.