Rucker v. Ebling

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rucker v. Ebling

278 S.W.3d 243, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 350, 2009 WL 685327

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

DocketED 91751

StatusPublished

This text of 278 S.W.3d 243 (Rucker v. Ebling) 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

Rucker v. Ebling, 278 S.W.3d 243, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 350, 2009 WL 685327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daryl Rucker (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City granting Defendants Michael Ebling (“Ebling”) and Schnuck Markets, Inc.’s (“Schnucks”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of workers’ compensation exclusivity. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because: (1) Defendants failed to prove that Schnucks was Plaintiffs statutory employer; (2) Defendants failed to show that Ebling was Plaintiffs statutory co-employee; and (3) the dismissal of Plaintiffs action contravened the purpose of the Missouri’s workers’ compensation law. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Daryl Rucker (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City granting Defendants Michael Ebling (“Ebling”) and Schnuck Markets, Inc.’s (“Schnucks”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of workers’ compensation exclusivity. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because: (1) Defendants failed to prove that Schnucks was Plaintiffs statutory employer; (2) Defendants failed to show that Ebling was Plaintiffs statutory co-employee; and (3) the dismissal of Plaintiffs action contravened the purpose of the Missouri’s workers’ compensation law. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 243, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 350, 2009 WL 685327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-ebling-moctapp-2009.