Moore v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

303 S.W.3d 654, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 200, 2010 WL 624013

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

DocketED 93150

StatusPublished

This text of 303 S.W.3d 654 (Moore v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY) 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

Moore v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 303 S.W.3d 654, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 200, 2010 WL 624013 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of James C. Moore and Luz B. Elfiki (collectively Homeowners) on Homeowners’ Petition alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence 1 .

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts *655 and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth our reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s award of summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Only the claim of breach of fiduciary duty was submitted to the jury.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of James C. Moore and Luz B. Elfiki (collectively Homeowners) on Homeowners’ Petition alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence 1 .

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts *655 and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth our reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s award of summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Only the claim of breach of fiduciary duty was submitted to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 654, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 200, 2010 WL 624013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-commonwealth-land-title-insurance-company-moctapp-2010.