Nieder v. SIFRIT

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nieder v. SIFRIT

312 S.W.3d 475, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 775, 2010 WL 2284178

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 2010

DocketED 93641

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 312 S.W.3d 475 (Nieder v. SIFRIT) 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

Nieder v. SIFRIT, 312 S.W.3d 475, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 775, 2010 WL 2284178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Nieder and Tiffany Welker (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the trial court’s judgment denying their request for attorney’s fees. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees.

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 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.

Scott Nieder and Tiffany Welker (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the trial court’s judgment denying their request for attorney’s fees. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees.

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 is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 S.W.3d 475, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 775, 2010 WL 2284178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieder-v-sifrit-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack