Leskiw v. Breihan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Leskiw v. Breihan

291 S.W.3d 376, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1228, 2009 WL 2750969

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 2009

DocketED 92324

StatusPublished

This text of 291 S.W.3d 376 (Leskiw v. Breihan) 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

Leskiw v. Breihan, 291 S.W.3d 376, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1228, 2009 WL 2750969 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Lisa Leskiw (Leskiw) appeals from the Order and Judgment (Judgment) dismissing with prejudice Leskiw’s Petition for Damages (Petition) on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law-of-the-case. On appeal, Leskiw argues the trial court erred in sustaining Mark Allen Breihan’s (Breihan) Motion to Dismiss Petition (Motion to Dismiss) because the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law-of-the-case are inapplicable and therefore the trial court lacked a basis for sustaining the Motion to Dismiss. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Lisa Leskiw (Leskiw) appeals from the Order and Judgment (Judgment) dismissing with prejudice Leskiw’s Petition for Damages (Petition) on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law-of-the-case. On appeal, Leskiw argues the trial court erred in sustaining Mark Allen Breihan’s (Breihan) Motion to Dismiss Petition (Motion to Dismiss) because the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law-of-the-case are inapplicable and therefore the trial court lacked a basis for sustaining the Motion to Dismiss. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 376, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1228, 2009 WL 2750969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leskiw-v-breihan-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack