McKee v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

McKee v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, Inc.

473 S.W.3d 208, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2015 WL 6468156

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 2015

DocketED 101393

StatusPublished

This text of 473 S.W.3d 208 (McKee v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, Inc.) 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

McKee v. Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 208, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2015 WL 6468156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Juanita McKee (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, entered in favor of Stanley Convergent Security Solutions (“Defendant”) and against Plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted her personal injury case on a breach of contract theory, alleging she suffered injuries in a November 6, 2006 house fire when an alarm system she purchased from Respondent failed to sound an alarm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Juanita McKee (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, entered in favor of Stanley Convergent Security Solutions (“Defendant”) and against Plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted her personal injury case on a breach of contract theory, alleging she suffered injuries in a November 6, 2006 house fire when an alarm system she purchased from Respondent failed to sound an alarm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 S.W.3d 208, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2015 WL 6468156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckee-v-stanley-convergent-security-solutions-inc-moctapp-2015.