Saint Louis University v. Masonic Temple Ass'n of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Saint Louis University v. Masonic Temple Ass'n of St. Louis

269 S.W.3d 447, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2008 WL 4205728

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

DocketED 90933

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W.3d 447 (Saint Louis University v. Masonic Temple Ass'n of St. Louis) 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

Saint Louis University v. Masonic Temple Ass'n of St. Louis, 269 S.W.3d 447, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2008 WL 4205728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Masonic Temple Association of St. Louis (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment assessing costs against it in favor of Saint Louis University (hereinafter, “SLU”). Appellant raises two points on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in awarding SLU its deposition costs because it had no jurisdiction to do so and if the trial court did have jurisdiction, its award exceeded statutory limits.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only 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.

The Masonic Temple Association of St. Louis (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment assessing costs against it in favor of Saint Louis University (hereinafter, “SLU”). Appellant raises two points on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in awarding SLU its deposition costs because it had no jurisdiction to do so and if the trial court did have jurisdiction, its award exceeded statutory limits.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 447, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2008 WL 4205728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saint-louis-university-v-masonic-temple-assn-of-st-louis-moctapp-2008.