Logan v. Kaempfe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Logan v. Kaempfe

524 S.W.3d 67, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2017 WL 769813

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104452

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 67 (Logan v. Kaempfe) 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

Logan v. Kaempfe, 524 S.W.3d 67, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2017 WL 769813 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Herman Logan (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment dismissing his claims against defendant Everbank and individual defendants, Andrea . Marx, Roger McGaugh, and Matthew Kaempfe (collectively “Respondents”), Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing his cause without prejudice as a sanction for discovery and court order. violations because such dismissal effectively terminated Appellant’s cause of action and Appellant did not have sufficient notice to prevent such dismissal. Appellant further claims that the trial court erred in not enforcing a settlement. agreement prior, to dismissal.

[68]*68We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit, and we affirm. We further deny Respondents’ motions to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor 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.

Herman Logan (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment dismissing his claims against defendant Everbank and individual defendants, Andrea . Marx, Roger McGaugh, and Matthew Kaempfe (collectively “Respondents”), Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing his cause without prejudice as a sanction for discovery and court order. violations because such dismissal effectively terminated Appellant’s cause of action and Appellant did not have sufficient notice to prevent such dismissal. Appellant further claims that the trial court erred in not enforcing a settlement. agreement prior, to dismissal.

[68]*68We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit, and we affirm. We further deny Respondents’ motions to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor 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)

524 S.W.3d 67, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2017 WL 769813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-kaempfe-moctapp-2017.