McLeod v. Break

Missouri Court of Appeals

McLeod v. Break

509 S.W.3d 815, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1131, 2016 WL 6596067

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 8, 2016·No. No. ED 103744·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Cathey Break, R.N., an Individual, d/b/a Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, and Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, Inc. (Appellants), appeal from the circuit court’s November 16, 2015 judgment deny[816] ing Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4)¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Cathey Break, R.N., an Individual, d/b/a Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, and Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, Inc. (Appellants), appeal from the circuit court’s November 16, 2015 judgment deny[816] ing Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4)¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

McLeod v. Break, 509 S.W.3d 815, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1131, 2016 WL 6596067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

509 S.W.3d 815 (McLeod v. Break) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.