Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.

220 S.W.3d 370, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2007 WL 656307

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

DocketED 88444

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W.3d 370 (Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.) 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

Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co., 220 S.W.3d 370, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2007 WL 656307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial on stipulated facts, in favor of Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C., and Arthur Margulis (collectively re *371 ferred to as Plaintiffs) in Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court drew the proper legal conclusions from the parties’ stipulated facts. Williams v. National Cas. Co., 132 S.W.3d 244, 246 (Mo. banc 2004). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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.

The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial on stipulated facts, in favor of Margulis, Grant & Margulis, P.C., and Arthur Margulis (collectively re *371 ferred to as Plaintiffs) in Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court drew the proper legal conclusions from the parties’ stipulated facts. Williams v. National Cas. Co., 132 S.W.3d 244, 246 (Mo. banc 2004). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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)

220 S.W.3d 370, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2007 WL 656307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margulis-grant-margulis-pc-v-bar-plan-mutual-insurance-co-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack