Margolies v. Fitch

Missouri Court of Appeals

Margolies v. Fitch

342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2011 WL 2331811

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2011

DocketED 95316

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 443 (Margolies v. Fitch) 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

Margolies v. Fitch, 342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2011 WL 2331811 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Margolies (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s declaratory judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant relief on his petition. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Margolies (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s declaratory judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant relief on his petition. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2011 WL 2331811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolies-v-fitch-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack