Laclede Gas Co. v. Dizdar Bros. Sewer & Construction Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Laclede Gas Co. v. Dizdar Bros. Sewer & Construction Co.

530 S.W.3d 632

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104786

StatusPublished

This text of 530 S.W.3d 632 (Laclede Gas Co. v. Dizdar Bros. Sewer & Construction Co.) 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

Laclede Gas Co. v. Dizdar Bros. Sewer & Construction Co., 530 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laclede Gas Company (“Laclede”) appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding Dizdar Brothers Sewer and Construction Co., Inc. (“Dizdar Bros.”) $14,897.50 in damages. Laclede offers two points on appeal. In Point I, Laclede argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Lac-lede had a duty to install and maintain its gas line in a reasonable and responsible manner and, if it did have that duty, erred in finding the duty was breached. In Point II, Laclede claims the trial court erred in admitting the time cards created by Diz-dar Bros, into evidence, as they were inadmissible hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laclede Gas Company (“Laclede”) appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding Dizdar Brothers Sewer and Construction Co., Inc. (“Dizdar Bros.”) $14,897.50 in damages. Laclede offers two points on appeal. In Point I, Laclede argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Lac-lede had a duty to install and maintain its gas line in a reasonable and responsible manner and, if it did have that duty, erred in finding the duty was breached. In Point II, Laclede claims the trial court erred in admitting the time cards created by Diz-dar Bros, into evidence, as they were inadmissible hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.3d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laclede-gas-co-v-dizdar-bros-sewer-construction-co-moctapp-2017.