OLASCOAGA EX REL. OLASCOAGA v. Bilderback

Missouri Court of Appeals

OLASCOAGA EX REL. OLASCOAGA v. Bilderback

352 S.W.3d 367, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2011 WL 2237603

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 95081

StatusPublished

This text of 352 S.W.3d 367 (OLASCOAGA EX REL. OLASCOAGA v. Bilderback) 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

OLASCOAGA EX REL. OLASCOAGA v. Bilderback, 352 S.W.3d 367, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2011 WL 2237603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ruth Olascoaga, a minor, by and through her Next Friend, Ismael Olascoa-ga, appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Janis Lee Bilderback in an automobile-pedestrian collision case. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in submitting its verdict director. Boggs ex rel. Boggs v. Lay, 164 S.W.3d 4, 20 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ruth Olascoaga, a minor, by and through her Next Friend, Ismael Olascoa-ga, appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Janis Lee Bilderback in an automobile-pedestrian collision case. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in submitting its verdict director. Boggs ex rel. Boggs v. Lay, 164 S.W.3d 4, 20 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 S.W.3d 367, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2011 WL 2237603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olascoaga-ex-rel-olascoaga-v-bilderback-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack