Katz v. RALL

Missouri Court of Appeals

Katz v. RALL

93 S.W.3d 800, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2474, 2002 WL 31863803

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

DocketED 80540

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.W.3d 800 (Katz v. RALL) 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

Katz v. RALL, 93 S.W.3d 800, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2474, 2002 WL 31863803 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Katz, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Arthur Katz, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his request for a permanent injunction and a prescriptive easement. We find no error and affirm.

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.

Arthur Katz, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Arthur Katz, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his request for a permanent injunction and a prescriptive easement. We find no error and affirm.

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)

93 S.W.3d 800, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2474, 2002 WL 31863803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-rall-moctapp-2002.