Kunkel v. Hertzog

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kunkel v. Hertzog

263 S.W.3d 735, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2008 WL 3895934

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 26, 2008·No. No. WD 68498·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Hertzog and Helen Jane Hertzog appeal from a partial summary judgment granted in favor of Charles Kunkel, Jr. and Catherine M. Kunkel on the Kunkels’ claim for breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment. After a thorough review of the record and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we find that the Kunkels made a prima facie showing that summary judgment was proper and the Hertzogs failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact. An extended opinion would have no precedential value, but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Hertzog and Helen Jane Hertzog appeal from a partial summary judgment granted in favor of Charles Kunkel, Jr. and Catherine M. Kunkel on the Kunkels’ claim for breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment. After a thorough review of the record and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we find that the Kunkels made a prima facie showing that summary judgment was proper and the Hertzogs failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact. An extended opinion would have no precedential value, but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Kunkel v. Hertzog, 263 S.W.3d 735, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2008 WL 3895934 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

263 S.W.3d 735 (Kunkel v. Hertzog) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.