Nevels v. Hassan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nevels v. Hassan

247 S.W.3d 99, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 324, 2008 WL 638084

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

DocketED 89157

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 S.W.3d 99 (Nevels v. Hassan) 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

Nevels v. Hassan, 247 S.W.3d 99, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 324, 2008 WL 638084 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jubril O. Hassan and Funmi A. Hassan (collectively referred to as Sellers), appeal from the trial court’s judgment, entered by order on December 8, 2006, denying Sellers’ Motion to Set Aside the trial court’s September 18, 2006 judgment in favor of Rochelle Nevels (Buyer) in Buyer’s action for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed *100 facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Jubril O. Hassan and Funmi A. Hassan (collectively referred to as Sellers), appeal from the trial court’s judgment, entered by order on December 8, 2006, denying Sellers’ Motion to Set Aside the trial court’s September 18, 2006 judgment in favor of Rochelle Nevels (Buyer) in Buyer’s action for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed *100 facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 99, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 324, 2008 WL 638084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevels-v-hassan-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack