Newsham v. ST. LOUIS CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH

Missouri Court of Appeals

Newsham v. ST. LOUIS CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH

211 S.W.3d 157, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2007 WL 46032

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 2007

DocketED 87972

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.W.3d 157 (Newsham v. ST. LOUIS CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH) 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

Newsham v. ST. LOUIS CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH, 211 S.W.3d 157, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2007 WL 46032 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tom Newsham (“Newsham”) appeals from a dismissal of his petition for a claim of premises liability against St. Louis Christian Center Church (“the Church”). Newsham claims three points on appeal. First, Newsham claims that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss on his claim of premises liability because he produced evidence that he had a claim as an invitee. Second, Newsham alleges that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss because he produced evidence that he had a claim as a licensee. Third, Newsham claims that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss because the “Firefighter’s Rule” is inapplicable in his case.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Tom Newsham (“Newsham”) appeals from a dismissal of his petition for a claim of premises liability against St. Louis Christian Center Church (“the Church”). Newsham claims three points on appeal. First, Newsham claims that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss on his claim of premises liability because he produced evidence that he had a claim as an invitee. Second, Newsham alleges that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss because he produced evidence that he had a claim as a licensee. Third, Newsham claims that the trial court erred in granting the Church’s Motion to Dismiss because the “Firefighter’s Rule” is inapplicable in his case.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 157, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2007 WL 46032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsham-v-st-louis-christian-center-church-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack