Peet v. DUPONT SECURITIES GROUP, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peet v. DUPONT SECURITIES GROUP, INC.

301 S.W.3d 526, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1682, 2009 WL 4279440

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

DocketED 92802

StatusPublished

This text of 301 S.W.3d 526 (Peet v. DUPONT SECURITIES GROUP, INC.) 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

Peet v. DUPONT SECURITIES GROUP, INC., 301 S.W.3d 526, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1682, 2009 WL 4279440 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dupont Securities Group, Inc., et al. (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying Appellant’s motion to set aside a default judgment on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. This is the second appeal from a motion to set aside a default judgment issued in June 2005. See Peet v. Dupont Securities Group, Inc., 260 S.W.3d 433, (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Appellant raises four points on appeal, challenging the trial court’s determination that its claim was barred by collateral estoppel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The motion taken with the case seeking sanctions for a frivolous appeal against Appellant and its counsel is granted in the amount of $2,500.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dupont Securities Group, Inc., et al. (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying Appellant’s motion to set aside a default judgment on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. This is the second appeal from a motion to set aside a default judgment issued in June 2005. See Peet v. Dupont Securities Group, Inc., 260 S.W.3d 433, (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Appellant raises four points on appeal, challenging the trial court’s determination that its claim was barred by collateral estoppel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The motion taken with the case seeking sanctions for a frivolous appeal against Appellant and its counsel is granted in the amount of $2,500.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.3d 526, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1682, 2009 WL 4279440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peet-v-dupont-securities-group-inc-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack