Perficient, Inc. v. Continuant, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Perficient, Inc. v. Continuant, Inc.

546 S.W.3d 610

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105743

StatusPublished

This text of 546 S.W.3d 610 (Perficient, Inc. v. Continuant, 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

Perficient, Inc. v. Continuant, Inc., 546 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*611Perficient, Inc. ("Perficient") appeals the trial court's grant of Continuant, Inc.'s ("Continuant's") motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract and unjust enrichment action. On appeal, Perficient argues that Missouri courts have personal jurisdiction over Continuant because Continuant has consented to all suits "arising out of or relating to its transaction of business [in Missouri]" by registering to transact business in Missouri and appointing a registered agent in the state. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

*611Perficient, Inc. ("Perficient") appeals the trial court's grant of Continuant, Inc.'s ("Continuant's") motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract and unjust enrichment action. On appeal, Perficient argues that Missouri courts have personal jurisdiction over Continuant because Continuant has consented to all suits "arising out of or relating to its transaction of business [in Missouri]" by registering to transact business in Missouri and appointing a registered agent in the state. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 S.W.3d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perficient-inc-v-continuant-inc-moctapp-2018.