Norman v. ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC
351 S.W.3d 249, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2011 WL 5064733
Opinion
ORDER
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in an action to recover damages from injuries suffered when he was bitten by his dog while it was being examined by a veterinarian. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the 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
Norman v. ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC, 351 S.W.3d 249, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2011 WL 5064733 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
351 S.W.3d 249 (Norman v. ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Woods v. State
351 S.W.3d 249 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)