KCP Hospitality, Inc. v. American Hintech, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

KCP Hospitality, Inc. v. American Hintech, Inc.

527 S.W.3d 165, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2017 WL 3707096

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2017

DocketWD 80270

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 165 (KCP Hospitality, Inc. v. American Hintech, Inc.) 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

KCP Hospitality, Inc. v. American Hintech, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 165, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2017 WL 3707096 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam

KCP Hospitality, Inc. (“KCP") appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment against it on its petition for declaratory judgment and breach of contract against American Hintech, Inc., American Commercial Stone Projects, Inc., Mountain Top and Coast Properties, LLC, and Shao Wang (collectively, “Respondents”). KCP contends the court erred in entering summary judgment because Respondents failed to properly plead their motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam

KCP Hospitality, Inc. (“KCP") appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment against it on its petition for declaratory judgment and breach of contract against American Hintech, Inc., American Commercial Stone Projects, Inc., Mountain Top and Coast Properties, LLC, and Shao Wang (collectively, “Respondents”). KCP contends the court erred in entering summary judgment because Respondents failed to properly plead their motion for summary judgment. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 165, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2017 WL 3707096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kcp-hospitality-inc-v-american-hintech-inc-moctapp-2017.