Ray v. Mills

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ray v. Mills

366 S.W.3d 84, 2012 WL 1623566, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 618

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 2012

DocketED 96921

StatusPublished

This text of 366 S.W.3d 84 (Ray v. Mills) 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

Ray v. Mills, 366 S.W.3d 84, 2012 WL 1623566, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 618 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theoda E. Mills (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a trial de novo awarding Darryl Robert Ray damages in the amount of $1,639.53 ($1,387.53 in medical and $258 in property) against Appellant and denying Appellant’s counterclaim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and did not erroneously declare or misapply the law. 6226 Northwood Condominium Ass’n v. Dwyer, 330 S.W.3d 504, 505 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theoda E. Mills (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a trial de novo awarding Darryl Robert Ray damages in the amount of $1,639.53 ($1,387.53 in medical and $258 in property) against Appellant and denying Appellant’s counterclaim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and did not erroneously declare or misapply the law. 6226 Northwood Condominium Ass’n v. Dwyer, 330 S.W.3d 504, 505 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 S.W.3d 84, 2012 WL 1623566, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-mills-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack