Roth Contracting, Inc. v. Gilded Age Renovation, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roth Contracting, Inc. v. Gilded Age Renovation, LLC

143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1318, 2004 WL 2033050

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83612

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.W.3d 708 (Roth Contracting, Inc. v. Gilded Age Renovation, LLC) 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

Roth Contracting, Inc. v. Gilded Age Renovation, LLC, 143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1318, 2004 WL 2033050 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gilded Age Renovation, L.L.C. (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Roth Contracting, Inc. (Plaintiff) on its petition for breach of contract and quantum meruit in the amount of $32,034.62. Defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in excluding the testimony of Trace Shaughnessy regarding the reasonableness of the fees charged by Plaintiff, (2) in excluding the testimony of Chris Goodson regarding the reasonableness of the fees charged by Plaintiff, and (3) in entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the reasonableness of Plaintiffs charge for services was not supported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony, Grab ex rel. Grab v. Dillon, 103 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2003), and the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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.

Gilded Age Renovation, L.L.C. (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Roth Contracting, Inc. (Plaintiff) on its petition for breach of contract and quantum meruit in the amount of $32,034.62. Defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in excluding the testimony of Trace Shaughnessy regarding the reasonableness of the fees charged by Plaintiff, (2) in excluding the testimony of Chris Goodson regarding the reasonableness of the fees charged by Plaintiff, and (3) in entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the reasonableness of Plaintiffs charge for services was not supported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony, Grab ex rel. Grab v. Dillon, 103 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2003), and the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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)

143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1318, 2004 WL 2033050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-contracting-inc-v-gilded-age-renovation-llc-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack