K.J. v. Replogle

Missouri Court of Appeals

K.J. v. Replogle

500 S.W.3d 846, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2016 WL 3414552

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103482

StatusPublished

This text of 500 S.W.3d 846 (K.J. v. Replogle) 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

K.J. v. Replogle, 500 S.W.3d 846, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2016 WL 3414552 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

KJ. appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ronald K. Replogle, Timothy Lohmar, and the St. Charles Sheriffs Department a/k/a the St. Charles Police Department on KJ.’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

KJ. appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ronald K. Replogle, Timothy Lohmar, and the St. Charles Sheriffs Department a/k/a the St. Charles Police Department on KJ.’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 S.W.3d 846, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2016 WL 3414552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kj-v-replogle-moctapp-2016.