Lancaster v. Carson & Coil, P.C.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lancaster v. Carson & Coil, P.C.

292 S.W.3d 379, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2009 WL 1851092

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 2009·No. WD 69459·Published

Opinion

*380 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Tim and Melissa Lancaster appeal from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Boone County dismissing their petition for damages against Respondents Carson & Coil, P.C. and Ronald McMillin. The circuit court found that the legal malpractice claims asserted by the Lancasters were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. A formal written opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision 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

*380 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Tim and Melissa Lancaster appeal from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Boone County dismissing their petition for damages against Respondents Carson & Coil, P.C. and Ronald McMillin. The circuit court found that the legal malpractice claims asserted by the Lancasters were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. A formal written opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Lancaster v. Carson & Coil, P.C., 292 S.W.3d 379, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2009 WL 1851092 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

292 S.W.3d 379 (Lancaster v. Carson & Coil, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.