Sall v. Ahmed

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sall v. Ahmed

477 S.W.3d 184, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2015 WL 7746157

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 1, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102768

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 184 (Sall v. Ahmed) 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

Sall v. Ahmed, 477 S.W.3d 184, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2015 WL 7746157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Limamoulaye Sail (Plaintiff) appeals from trial court’s judgment following a jury trial in which the jury found Saad Ahmed (Defendant) to be not liable and zero percent at fault on Plaintiffs personal injury claim against Defendant. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We [185]*185have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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

Limamoulaye Sail (Plaintiff) appeals from trial court’s judgment following a jury trial in which the jury found Saad Ahmed (Defendant) to be not liable and zero percent at fault on Plaintiffs personal injury claim against Defendant. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We [185]*185have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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)

477 S.W.3d 184, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2015 WL 7746157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sall-v-ahmed-moctapp-2015.