Jones v. Caspari

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. Caspari

892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 1995 WL 57897

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

DocketNo. 66347

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 892 S.W.2d 398 (Jones v. Caspari) 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

Jones v. Caspari, 892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 1995 WL 57897 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, acting pro se, appeals the dismissal by the circuit court of his action for declaratory judgment. In his petition for declaratory judgment, Appellant challenges the calculation of his good time credits while at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. Appellant also appeals the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum [399]*399opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, acting pro se, appeals the dismissal by the circuit court of his action for declaratory judgment. In his petition for declaratory judgment, Appellant challenges the calculation of his good time credits while at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. Appellant also appeals the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum [399]*399opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 1995 WL 57897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-caspari-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack