INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Crowder

Missouri Court of Appeals

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Crowder

343 S.W.3d 770, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 978

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 26, 2011

DocketWD 72841, WD 73159

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 343 S.W.3d 770 (INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Crowder) 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

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Crowder, 343 S.W.3d 770, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 978 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*771 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Loretta Hunziker appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Henry County dividing proceeds paid into the court pursuant to a petition for interpleader filed by Infinity Insurance Company. Specifically, Hunziker challenges the trial court’s awarding $1,000.00 of the inter-pleaded funds to her and $49,000.00 to Sharon Crowder. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published 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

*771 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Loretta Hunziker appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Henry County dividing proceeds paid into the court pursuant to a petition for interpleader filed by Infinity Insurance Company. Specifically, Hunziker challenges the trial court’s awarding $1,000.00 of the inter-pleaded funds to her and $49,000.00 to Sharon Crowder. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 S.W.3d 770, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/infinity-insurance-company-v-crowder-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack