R.G. Ross Construction Co. v. G.J. Grewe, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

R.G. Ross Construction Co. v. G.J. Grewe, Inc.

489 S.W.3d 854, 2016 WL 1317986, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 324

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2016

DocketED 103152

StatusPublished

This text of 489 S.W.3d 854 (R.G. Ross Construction Co. v. G.J. Grewe, Inc.) 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

R.G. Ross Construction Co. v. G.J. Grewe, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 854, 2016 WL 1317986, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 324 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant R.G. Ross Construction Co., Inc. (Ross) appeals the judgment in favor of G.J. Grewe, Inc. (Grewe) and Kenrick Developers Investment, Inc., in Ross’ action to recover monies Ross claimed it spent in performing preconstruction services on a development project. The trial court determined that a valid settlement agreement existed and entered a judgment enforcing the settlement. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant R.G. Ross Construction Co., Inc. (Ross) appeals the judgment in favor of G.J. Grewe, Inc. (Grewe) and Kenrick Developers Investment, Inc., in Ross’ action to recover monies Ross claimed it spent in performing preconstruction services on a development project. The trial court determined that a valid settlement agreement existed and entered a judgment enforcing the settlement. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 S.W.3d 854, 2016 WL 1317986, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rg-ross-construction-co-v-gj-grewe-inc-moctapp-2016.