Pettinelli v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pettinelli v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

201 S.W.3d 76, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1349

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 12, 2006·No. No. ED 87376·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Angela Pettinelli and Paul Harney (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable David L. Dowd presiding, after the trial court dismissed two counts of Appellants’ six-count petition, and further, denied Appellants’ motion to amend one of the counts and add another count.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Angela Pettinelli and Paul Harney (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable David L. Dowd presiding, after the trial court dismissed two counts of Appellants’ six-count petition, and further, denied Appellants’ motion to amend one of the counts and add another count.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Pettinelli v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 201 S.W.3d 76, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1349 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

201 S.W.3d 76 (Pettinelli v. U.S. Bank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.