Rohlik v. Burkett

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rohlik v. Burkett

474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1125, 2015 WL 6689356

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 3, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102423

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 220 (Rohlik v. Burkett) 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

Rohlik v. Burkett, 474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1125, 2015 WL 6689356 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.'

Brian Burkett and Jeffrey Hales, Jr. (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment finding Josef and Maire Rohlik acquired certain real property through adverse possession. The Rohliks cross-appeal, arguing the' trial court’s award of an easement by necessity to Appellants was improper.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with,Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.'

Brian Burkett and Jeffrey Hales, Jr. (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment finding Josef and Maire Rohlik acquired certain real property through adverse possession. The Rohliks cross-appeal, arguing the' trial court’s award of an easement by necessity to Appellants was improper.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with,Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1125, 2015 WL 6689356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohlik-v-burkett-moctapp-2015.