Koltun v. Oak View Vill.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Koltun v. Oak View Vill.

552 S.W.3d 666

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105766

StatusPublished

This text of 552 S.W.3d 666 (Koltun v. Oak View Vill.) 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

Koltun v. Oak View Vill., 552 S.W.3d 666 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sidney D. Koltun ("Mr. Koltun") appeals from the trial court's judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Golden Construction Company, LLC ("Golden Construction") in a case arising out of a slip and fall Mr. Koltun took on ice while inspecting a building on the construction site of Oak View Village. The jury found no fault on the part of Golden Construction. On appeal, Mr. Koltun argues the trial court erred in failing to submit his proposed verdict directing instruction to the jury, and in failing to admit witness *667testimony at trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P . 84.16(b) (2015).

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

PER CURIAM.

Sidney D. Koltun ("Mr. Koltun") appeals from the trial court's judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Golden Construction Company, LLC ("Golden Construction") in a case arising out of a slip and fall Mr. Koltun took on ice while inspecting a building on the construction site of Oak View Village. The jury found no fault on the part of Golden Construction. On appeal, Mr. Koltun argues the trial court erred in failing to submit his proposed verdict directing instruction to the jury, and in failing to admit witness *667testimony at trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P . 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 S.W.3d 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koltun-v-oak-view-vill-moctapp-2018.