Imfeld v. Whitrock

Missouri Court of Appeals

Imfeld v. Whitrock

54 S.W.3d 726, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1607, 2001 WL 1083937

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2001

DocketNo. ED 79024

StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.W.3d 726 (Imfeld v. Whitrock) 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

Imfeld v. Whitrock, 54 S.W.3d 726, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1607, 2001 WL 1083937 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bonia Imfeld (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gladys Whitroek (hereinafter, “Respondent”) for injuries arising from a fire which occurred while Appellant was a guest at a home Respondent owned, but rented to her daughter. Appellant claims there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Respondent’s retention of control over the premises as the landlord and the misplacement of a smoke detector in the sleeping area as a latent defect which precluded judgment as a matter of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment was entered properly as a matter of law. Green v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 13 S.W.3d 647, 648 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Bonia Imfeld (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gladys Whitroek (hereinafter, “Respondent”) for injuries arising from a fire which occurred while Appellant was a guest at a home Respondent owned, but rented to her daughter. Appellant claims there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Respondent’s retention of control over the premises as the landlord and the misplacement of a smoke detector in the sleeping area as a latent defect which precluded judgment as a matter of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment was entered properly as a matter of law. Green v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 13 S.W.3d 647, 648 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.W.3d 726, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1607, 2001 WL 1083937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imfeld-v-whitrock-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack