Ludlum v. Fielder

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ludlum v. Fielder

157 S.W.3d 342, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2005 WL 406189

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84358

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 342 (Ludlum v. Fielder) 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

Ludlum v. Fielder, 157 S.W.3d 342, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2005 WL 406189 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Jessica Fielder (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment against her and in favor of Plaintiff Earl Ludlum (“Plaintiff’) for property damage Mr. Ludlum sustained in an automobile collision with Ms. Fielder. On appeal Ms. Fielder claims that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for mistrial after Mr. Lud-lum made unsolicited comments regarding insurance coverage. Ms. Fielder also contends that the trial court should have ruled in her favor upon her motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff, Mr. Lud-lum, failed to produce sufficient evidence in regards to the element of damages. This court finds no error and affirms.

*343 No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Defendant Jessica Fielder (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment against her and in favor of Plaintiff Earl Ludlum (“Plaintiff’) for property damage Mr. Ludlum sustained in an automobile collision with Ms. Fielder. On appeal Ms. Fielder claims that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for mistrial after Mr. Lud-lum made unsolicited comments regarding insurance coverage. Ms. Fielder also contends that the trial court should have ruled in her favor upon her motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff, Mr. Lud-lum, failed to produce sufficient evidence in regards to the element of damages. This court finds no error and affirms.

*343 No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 342, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2005 WL 406189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlum-v-fielder-moctapp-2005.