McGee ex rel. McGee v. City of Pine Lawn

Missouri Court of Appeals

McGee ex rel. McGee v. City of Pine Lawn

477 S.W.3d 689, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2015 WL 8229016

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102189

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 689 (McGee ex rel. McGee v. City of Pine Lawn) 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

McGee ex rel. McGee v. City of Pine Lawn, 477 S.W.3d 689, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2015 WL 8229016 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM. •

The City of Pine Lawn appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding damages of $500,000 to Marqual. McGee in a negligence suit after McGee suffered injuries on the City’s premises. The City claims that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) awarding McGee $469,857.31 in damages for pain and suffering and (2) admitting certain medical bills and records of McGee’s actual damages ($30,142.69) without authentication and evidence of reasonableness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM. •

The City of Pine Lawn appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding damages of $500,000 to Marqual. McGee in a negligence suit after McGee suffered injuries on the City’s premises. The City claims that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) awarding McGee $469,857.31 in damages for pain and suffering and (2) admitting certain medical bills and records of McGee’s actual damages ($30,142.69) without authentication and evidence of reasonableness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 689, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2015 WL 8229016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-ex-rel-mcgee-v-city-of-pine-lawn-moctapp-2015.