King v. Treasurer of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. Treasurer of Missouri

139 S.W.3d 199, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1021, 2004 WL 1555279

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 2004

DocketED 83582

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.3d 199 (King v. Treasurer of Missouri) 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

King v. Treasurer of Missouri, 139 S.W.3d 199, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1021, 2004 WL 1555279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alfred King (Claimant) filed a Petition for Judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County pursuant to Section 287.500 RSMo 2000 requesting the Circuit Court to enter judgment against the Second Injury Fund (the SIF) in accordance with a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) as modified by Claimant. The Circuit Court entered judgment as Claimant requested, resulting in a modification of the final award. The SIF filed a motion to set the judgment aside and the Circuit Court granted the SIF’s motion. Thereafter, the SIF orally moved for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Circuit Court granted the SIF’s motion and entered judgment in accordance with the Commission’s final award.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Because the Circuit Court’s initial judgment was not in accordance with the Commission’s final award, the court did not abuse its discretion in setting it aside. In addition, the court properly granted the SIF’s motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in accordance with the Commission’s final award. An extended opinion restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

Alfred King (Claimant) filed a Petition for Judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County pursuant to Section 287.500 RSMo 2000 requesting the Circuit Court to enter judgment against the Second Injury Fund (the SIF) in accordance with a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) as modified by Claimant. The Circuit Court entered judgment as Claimant requested, resulting in a modification of the final award. The SIF filed a motion to set the judgment aside and the Circuit Court granted the SIF’s motion. Thereafter, the SIF orally moved for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Circuit Court granted the SIF’s motion and entered judgment in accordance with the Commission’s final award.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Because the Circuit Court’s initial judgment was not in accordance with the Commission’s final award, the court did not abuse its discretion in setting it aside. In addition, the court properly granted the SIF’s motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in accordance with the Commission’s final award. An extended opinion restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 199, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1021, 2004 WL 1555279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-treasurer-of-missouri-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack