KISTER v. Travis

Missouri Court of Appeals

KISTER v. Travis

233 S.W.3d 763, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2007 WL 2768698

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88647

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 S.W.3d 763 (KISTER v. Travis) 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

KISTER v. Travis, 233 S.W.3d 763, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2007 WL 2768698 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Kelly Kister (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding in favor of Respondent, Frankie Travis (“Respondent”) on the issues of negligence and damages for Appellant’s personal injuries from a motor vehicle collision. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Appellant Kelly Kister (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding in favor of Respondent, Frankie Travis (“Respondent”) on the issues of negligence and damages for Appellant’s personal injuries from a motor vehicle collision. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 763, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2007 WL 2768698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kister-v-travis-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack