Lucas v. Kuhlengel

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lucas v. Kuhlengel

886 S.W.2d 140, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1495, 1994 WL 499505

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 1994

DocketNo. 65158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 886 S.W.2d 140 (Lucas v. Kuhlengel) 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

Lucas v. Kuhlengel, 886 S.W.2d 140, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1495, 1994 WL 499505 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the order of the trial court was proper, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the order of the trial court was proper, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 S.W.2d 140, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1495, 1994 WL 499505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-kuhlengel-moctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack