Luecke v. Heck

Missouri Court of Appeals

Luecke v. Heck

892 S.W.2d 824, 1995 WL 73386

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 1995·No. No. 66133·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order which dismissed his “Trial De Novo ... for failure to prosecute” and reinstated a previous judgment in favor of plaintiff as to plaintiffs claim and defendant’s counterclaim. We affirm. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this [825]*825order 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order which dismissed his “Trial De Novo ... for failure to prosecute” and reinstated a previous judgment in favor of plaintiff as to plaintiffs claim and defendant’s counterclaim. We affirm. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this [825]*825order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Luecke v. Heck, 892 S.W.2d 824, 1995 WL 73386 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

892 S.W.2d 824 (Luecke v. Heck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.