PONZAR v. Peterson

Missouri Court of Appeals

PONZAR v. Peterson

275 S.W.3d 374, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2009 WL 215364

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

DocketED 91376

StatusPublished

This text of 275 S.W.3d 374 (PONZAR v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 275 S.W.3d 374, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2009 WL 215364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kurt Ponzar appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of his suit on account against Steven Peterson and Virginia Busch and the court’s subsequent denial of Ponzar’s post-trial motion. We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court did not err. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion. A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm 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 Ponzar appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of his suit on account against Steven Peterson and Virginia Busch and the court’s subsequent denial of Ponzar’s post-trial motion. We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court did not err. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion. A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 374, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2009 WL 215364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponzar-v-peterson-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack