Krueger v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities

Missouri Court of Appeals

Krueger v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities

518 S.W.3d 286, 2017 WL 2118617, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 422

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104143

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 286 (Krueger v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities) 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

Krueger v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities, 518 S.W.3d 286, 2017 WL 2118617, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 422 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) appeals from the [287]*287judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following a jury verdict rejecting its claim for equitable indemnification against Mercy Hospitals East Communities (“Mercy Hospital”). Travelers argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying its motion for a new trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only 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.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) appeals from the [287]*287judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following a jury verdict rejecting its claim for equitable indemnification against Mercy Hospitals East Communities (“Mercy Hospital”). Travelers argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying its motion for a new trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only 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)

518 S.W.3d 286, 2017 WL 2118617, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krueger-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-moctapp-2017.