Mayer v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mayer v. Miller

276 S.W.3d 910, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100, 2009 WL 486146

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

DocketED 90489

StatusPublished

This text of 276 S.W.3d 910 (Mayer v. Miller) 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

Mayer v. Miller, 276 S.W.3d 910, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100, 2009 WL 486146 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David J. Mayer appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a bench trial on his small claims petition against Danieal H. Miller, d/b/a Danieal H. Miller, PC.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David J. Mayer appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a bench trial on his small claims petition against Danieal H. Miller, d/b/a Danieal H. Miller, PC.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 910, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100, 2009 WL 486146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-miller-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack