McBAINE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. Carlisle

Missouri Court of Appeals

McBAINE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. Carlisle

273 S.W.3d 82, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1494, 2008 WL 5505857

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

DocketED 90108

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 82 (McBAINE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. Carlisle) 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

McBAINE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. Carlisle, 273 S.W.3d 82, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1494, 2008 WL 5505857 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

McBaine Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter, “McBaine”) filed suit to enforce its mechanic’s lien against George W. Carlisle, Jr. (hereinafter, “Homeowner”) for work it performed in restoring and reconstructing Homeowner’s residence. The trial court *83 entered judgment in favor of McBaine; Homeowner appeals pro se. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. McBaine filed two motions taken with the case seeking to dismiss Homeowner's appeal or to strike Homeowner's brief. Homeowner filed a motion taken with the case to strike portions of McBaine's brief. All of the motions are denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

McBaine Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter, “McBaine”) filed suit to enforce its mechanic’s lien against George W. Carlisle, Jr. (hereinafter, “Homeowner”) for work it performed in restoring and reconstructing Homeowner’s residence. The trial court *83 entered judgment in favor of McBaine; Homeowner appeals pro se. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. McBaine filed two motions taken with the case seeking to dismiss Homeowner's appeal or to strike Homeowner's brief. Homeowner filed a motion taken with the case to strike portions of McBaine's brief. All of the motions are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 82, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1494, 2008 WL 5505857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbaine-solutions-inc-v-carlisle-moctapp-2008.