Laramore v. Roberts

Missouri Court of Appeals

Laramore v. Roberts

260 S.W.3d 441, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 2008 WL 3843823

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90664

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 441 (Laramore v. Roberts) 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

Laramore v. Roberts, 260 S.W.3d 441, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 2008 WL 3843823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tami Laramore (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s December 20, 2007 Judgment and Order (Judgment) granting the Motion of Guy Roberts (Respondent) for Summary Judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claims asserted in Appellant’s petition. ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tami Laramore (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s December 20, 2007 Judgment and Order (Judgment) granting the Motion of Guy Roberts (Respondent) for Summary Judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claims asserted in Appellant’s petition. ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 441, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 2008 WL 3843823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laramore-v-roberts-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack