Matthews v. Graham

Missouri Court of Appeals

Matthews v. Graham

323 S.W.3d 80, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1365, 2010 WL 3971331

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 2010·No. No. ED 94156·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maureen Matthews appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Barbara Graham and Eastman, Dillon, Graham, and Goldfarb, LLP (“Counsel”) on her petition for legal malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. We find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Counsel.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maureen Matthews appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Barbara Graham and Eastman, Dillon, Graham, and Goldfarb, LLP (“Counsel”) on her petition for legal malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. We find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Counsel.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Matthews v. Graham, 323 S.W.3d 80, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1365, 2010 WL 3971331 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

323 S.W.3d 80 (Matthews v. Graham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.