SAGITTO v. McDonald

Missouri Court of Appeals

SAGITTO v. McDonald

352 S.W.3d 419, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2011 WL 5374111

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2011

DocketED 95765

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 352 S.W.3d 419 (SAGITTO v. McDonald) 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

SAGITTO v. McDonald, 352 S.W.3d 419, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2011 WL 5374111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marco Sagitto (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in accordance with a jury verdict awarding Appellant $5,000 in damages on his petition for personal injuries against Sean McDonald. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Appellant has failed to preserve his point for appellate review. Evans v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marco Sagitto (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in accordance with a jury verdict awarding Appellant $5,000 in damages on his petition for personal injuries against Sean McDonald. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Appellant has failed to preserve his point for appellate review. Evans v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 S.W.3d 419, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2011 WL 5374111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sagitto-v-mcdonald-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack