Pine Valley Water Co. v. Ronnoco Coffee Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pine Valley Water Co. v. Ronnoco Coffee Co.

93 S.W.3d 763, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2240, 2002 WL 31518667

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

DocketED 80701

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.W.3d 763 (Pine Valley Water Co. v. Ronnoco Coffee Co.) 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

Pine Valley Water Co. v. Ronnoco Coffee Co., 93 S.W.3d 763, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2240, 2002 WL 31518667 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Pine Valley Water Company (Pine Valley) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ronnoco Coffee Company (Ronnoco). In a suit against Ronnoco, Pine Valley alleged Ron-noco breached a confidentiality agreement and used confidential information to unfairly compete with Pine Valley and to damage Pine Valley’s customer relationships. On appeal, Pine Valley argues the trial court erred in (1) granting Ronnoco summary judgment and denying Pine Valley’s motion for reconsideration because Pine Valley raised genuine issues of material fact in the responsive pleadings and interrogatory answers that sufficiently complied with Rule 74.04 and (2) denying Pine Valley’s motions for extensions of time within which to respond to Ronnoeo’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Pine Valley Water Company (Pine Valley) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ronnoco Coffee Company (Ronnoco). In a suit against Ronnoco, Pine Valley alleged Ron-noco breached a confidentiality agreement and used confidential information to unfairly compete with Pine Valley and to damage Pine Valley’s customer relationships. On appeal, Pine Valley argues the trial court erred in (1) granting Ronnoco summary judgment and denying Pine Valley’s motion for reconsideration because Pine Valley raised genuine issues of material fact in the responsive pleadings and interrogatory answers that sufficiently complied with Rule 74.04 and (2) denying Pine Valley’s motions for extensions of time within which to respond to Ronnoeo’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.W.3d 763, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2240, 2002 WL 31518667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-valley-water-co-v-ronnoco-coffee-co-moctapp-2002.