Martello v. VANDERCLOK

Missouri Court of Appeals

Martello v. VANDERCLOK

345 S.W.3d 392, 2011 WL 3569327

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2011

DocketED 95651

StatusPublished

This text of 345 S.W.3d 392 (Martello v. VANDERCLOK) 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

Martello v. VANDERCLOK, 345 S.W.3d 392, 2011 WL 3569327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*393 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew T. Martello (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the motions to dismiss filed by defendants, Marie Vanderklok, Touchpoint Autism Services fik/a The Judevine Center for Autism (Touchpoint), and Rebecca Blackwell (collectively, Defendants). 1 We have reviewed de novo the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit. 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) (2011).

1

. Martello’s claims against defendants Missouri Division of Elementary & Secondary Education and Behavioral Analysis Certification Board were also dismissed, but he does not appeal those dismissals.

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

*393 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew T. Martello (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the motions to dismiss filed by defendants, Marie Vanderklok, Touchpoint Autism Services fik/a The Judevine Center for Autism (Touchpoint), and Rebecca Blackwell (collectively, Defendants). 1 We have reviewed de novo the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit. 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) (2011).

1

. Martello’s claims against defendants Missouri Division of Elementary & Secondary Education and Behavioral Analysis Certification Board were also dismissed, but he does not appeal those dismissals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 S.W.3d 392, 2011 WL 3569327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martello-v-vanderclok-moctapp-2011.