Ponzar v. Bodeux

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ponzar v. Bodeux

247 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 322, 2008 WL 638098

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

DocketED 90159

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 S.W.3d 103 (Ponzar v. Bodeux) 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

Ponzar v. Bodeux, 247 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 322, 2008 WL 638098 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kurt W. Ponzar (hereinafter, “Ponzar”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Reginald P. Bodeux (hereinafter, “Attorney”). Ponzar raises one issue on appeal, claiming Attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of his damages and that Attorney faded to advise him of issues on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Kurt W. Ponzar (hereinafter, “Ponzar”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Reginald P. Bodeux (hereinafter, “Attorney”). Ponzar raises one issue on appeal, claiming Attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of his damages and that Attorney faded to advise him of issues on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 322, 2008 WL 638098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponzar-v-bodeux-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack