LITTY v. Bliss

Missouri Court of Appeals

LITTY v. Bliss

238 S.W.3d 730, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2007 WL 3342100

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

DocketED 89033

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 S.W.3d 730 (LITTY v. Bliss) 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

LITTY v. Bliss, 238 S.W.3d 730, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2007 WL 3342100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ron and Sharon Litty (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellant”) filed the underlying suit, alleging personal injury and a loss of consortium, based upon an automobile accident that occurred on December 3, 2002. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury awarded Ron Litty $20,000 in damages for his personal injury claim and no damages for Sharon Litty’s loss of consortium claim. Appellant appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury verdict, claiming Appellant was prejudiced by nondisclosure of information by six jurors.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information *731 only, setting fort the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Ron and Sharon Litty (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellant”) filed the underlying suit, alleging personal injury and a loss of consortium, based upon an automobile accident that occurred on December 3, 2002. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury awarded Ron Litty $20,000 in damages for his personal injury claim and no damages for Sharon Litty’s loss of consortium claim. Appellant appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury verdict, claiming Appellant was prejudiced by nondisclosure of information by six jurors.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information *731 only, setting fort the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 730, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2007 WL 3342100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litty-v-bliss-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack