Orr v. Arcand

Missouri Court of Appeals

Orr v. Arcand

348 S.W.3d 830, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2011 WL 4373940

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 20, 2011

DocketED 96370

StatusPublished

This text of 348 S.W.3d 830 (Orr v. Arcand) 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

Orr v. Arcand, 348 S.W.3d 830, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2011 WL 4373940 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Orr (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by Joe Arcand and Tom Clements (collectively, Respondents). We have reviewed de novo the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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) (2011).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Orr (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by Joe Arcand and Tom Clements (collectively, Respondents). We have reviewed de novo the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find Appellant’s claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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) (2011).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.W.3d 830, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2011 WL 4373940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-arcand-moctapp-2011.