NB WEST CONTRACTING COMPANY v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

NB WEST CONTRACTING COMPANY v. Johnson

236 S.W.3d 100, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1350, 2007 WL 2702337

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

DocketED 89090

StatusPublished

This text of 236 S.W.3d 100 (NB WEST CONTRACTING COMPANY v. Johnson) 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

NB WEST CONTRACTING COMPANY v. Johnson, 236 S.W.3d 100, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1350, 2007 WL 2702337 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jin Lisa Jean Johnson (“Employee”) appeals the trial court’s judgment determining that she wrongfully converted funds of N.B. West Contracting Company (“Em *101 ployer”) to her use. We find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Employer’s motion to amend the pleadings in order to offer evidence regarding conversion of funds during the years 1998 and 2000.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jin Lisa Jean Johnson (“Employee”) appeals the trial court’s judgment determining that she wrongfully converted funds of N.B. West Contracting Company (“Em *101 ployer”) to her use. We find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Employer’s motion to amend the pleadings in order to offer evidence regarding conversion of funds during the years 1998 and 2000.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.3d 100, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1350, 2007 WL 2702337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nb-west-contracting-company-v-johnson-moctapp-2007.