Mattingly v. Costello

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mattingly v. Costello

850 S.W.2d 125, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 538, 1993 WL 106368

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 13, 1993·No. No. 61938·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in her favor of $1,000 for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. She premises error on questions to witnesses and to arguments of counsel. Objection was made to only one of the questions— defendant’s occupation. Such a question is proper. Wilcox v. Coons, 362 Mo. 381, 241 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.1951) [17-19]. No objections were made to any of the other questions or to the arguments. Nothing has been preserved for review. There is no precedential value to an extended opinion. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in her favor of $1,000 for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. She premises error on questions to witnesses and to arguments of counsel. Objection was made to only one of the questions— defendant’s occupation. Such a question is proper. Wilcox v. Coons, 362 Mo. 381, 241 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.1951) [17-19]. No objections were made to any of the other questions or to the arguments. Nothing has been preserved for review. There is no precedential value to an extended opinion. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).

Mattingly v. Costello, 850 S.W.2d 125, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 538, 1993 WL 106368 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

850 S.W.2d 125 (Mattingly v. Costello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related