Metro Materials, Inc. v. City of Kinloch

Missouri Court of Appeals

Metro Materials, Inc. v. City of Kinloch

497 S.W.3d 357, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 831, 2016 WL 4525325

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103607

StatusPublished

This text of 497 S.W.3d 357 (Metro Materials, Inc. v. City of Kinloch) 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

Metro Materials, Inc. v. City of Kinloch, 497 S.W.3d 357, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 831, 2016 WL 4525325 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The City of Kinloch was sued in 2011 by Metro Materials, Inc. (“Metro”) for the failure to pay for concrete and construction materials supplied to Kinloch on account. A consent judgment was entered by the trial court in January 2012, in favor of Metro and against Kinloch in the amount of $19,061.21, plus court costs. Kinloch sought to have the consent judgment set aside as void. The trial court denied Kin-loch’s request and this appeal follows. Finding no error of law, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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 Kinloch was sued in 2011 by Metro Materials, Inc. (“Metro”) for the failure to pay for concrete and construction materials supplied to Kinloch on account. A consent judgment was entered by the trial court in January 2012, in favor of Metro and against Kinloch in the amount of $19,061.21, plus court costs. Kinloch sought to have the consent judgment set aside as void. The trial court denied Kin-loch’s request and this appeal follows. Finding no error of law, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.3d 357, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 831, 2016 WL 4525325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-materials-inc-v-city-of-kinloch-moctapp-2016.