Nixon v. Whitson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nixon v. Whitson

213 S.W.3d 80, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1757, 2006 WL 3361172

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

DocketED 87191

StatusPublished

This text of 213 S.W.3d 80 (Nixon v. Whitson) 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

Nixon v. Whitson, 213 S.W.3d 80, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1757, 2006 WL 3361172 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, (Attorney General) and Michael Keathley, Commissioner of Administration, State of Missouri (Commissioner) (collectively, the State) appeal from the trial court’s judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the State, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Cape Gir-ardeau School District No. 63 (School District), and awarding School District a total of $90,939.53 plus interest at the legal rate since June 13, 2005, to be paid out of the State Legal Expense Fund, Sections 105.711 et seq. RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, (Attorney General) and Michael Keathley, Commissioner of Administration, State of Missouri (Commissioner) (collectively, the State) appeal from the trial court’s judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the State, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Cape Gir-ardeau School District No. 63 (School District), and awarding School District a total of $90,939.53 plus interest at the legal rate since June 13, 2005, to be paid out of the State Legal Expense Fund, Sections 105.711 et seq. RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.3d 80, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1757, 2006 WL 3361172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-whitson-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack