Mueller v. IMRAL

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mueller v. IMRAL

320 S.W.3d 202, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2010 WL 3398723

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 31, 2010

DocketED 93628

StatusPublished

This text of 320 S.W.3d 202 (Mueller v. IMRAL) 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

Mueller v. IMRAL, 320 S.W.3d 202, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2010 WL 3398723 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tamara Mueller (hereinafter, “Mueller”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment on her claim for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident she was involved in with Sadik Imral (hereinafter, “Imral”). The jury returned a verdict awarding $30,000 in total damages, assessing forty percent fault to Mueller and sixty percent fault to Imral. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment in Mueller’s favor for $18,000. Mueller raises two points on appeal alleging instructional error. First, Mueller claims there was insufficient evidence to support the submission of a comparative fault instruction. Second, Mueller argues the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to provide a definition of “yield the right-of-way” to the jury with the comparative fault instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The trial court’s 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

PER CURIAM.

Tamara Mueller (hereinafter, “Mueller”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment on her claim for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident she was involved in with Sadik Imral (hereinafter, “Imral”). The jury returned a verdict awarding $30,000 in total damages, assessing forty percent fault to Mueller and sixty percent fault to Imral. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment in Mueller’s favor for $18,000. Mueller raises two points on appeal alleging instructional error. First, Mueller claims there was insufficient evidence to support the submission of a comparative fault instruction. Second, Mueller argues the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to provide a definition of “yield the right-of-way” to the jury with the comparative fault instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 S.W.3d 202, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2010 WL 3398723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-imral-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack