Lawless v. Florissant Police Dep't

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawless v. Florissant Police Dep't

556 S.W.3d 62

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2018

DocketED 105853

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 62 (Lawless v. Florissant Police Dep't) 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

Lawless v. Florissant Police Dep't, 556 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kirk Lawless (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Appellant's employer, the Florissant Police Department and the City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster, and Chris Roth, on Appellant's first amended petition alleging retaliation and discrimination; and the trial court's order denying Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of evidence, Marmaduke v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), or in the denial of Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for evidentiary hearing, Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). 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 and order 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

PER CURIAM.

Kirk Lawless (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Appellant's employer, the Florissant Police Department and the City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster, and Chris Roth, on Appellant's first amended petition alleging retaliation and discrimination; and the trial court's order denying Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of evidence, Marmaduke v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), or in the denial of Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for evidentiary hearing, Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). 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 and order pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawless-v-florissant-police-dept-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack