Ruwe v. McClung
This text of 277 S.W.3d 355 (Ruwe v. McClung) 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.
Opinion
ORDER
Dr. Mark McClung appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternative motion for a new trial, after a jury found him medically negligent in connection with a reconstructive surgery he performed on Kathryn Cetto. In three points on appeal, Dr. McClung claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on his assertion that Ms. Cetto failed to make a submissi-ble medical negligence case; (2) denying his motion for a new trial based on his claim of instructional error; and (3) denying his motion for a new trial based on juror nondisclosure. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The points are denied, and the judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
277 S.W.3d 355, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2009 WL 482340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruwe-v-mcclung-moctapp-2009.