Sanborn v. Worstell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sanborn v. Worstell

556 S.W.3d 97

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106120

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 97 (Sanborn v. Worstell) 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

Sanborn v. Worstell, 556 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*98Howard T. Sanborn, Jonathan Lopez, and Nathan Worstell (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their motions for summary judgment and granting United Fire & Casualty Company's (United) cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination of coverage under a United insurance policy. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the circuit court did not err in denying Appellants' motions and granting United's cross-motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact and United is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 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

PER CURIAM.

*98Howard T. Sanborn, Jonathan Lopez, and Nathan Worstell (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their motions for summary judgment and granting United Fire & Casualty Company's (United) cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination of coverage under a United insurance policy. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the circuit court did not err in denying Appellants' motions and granting United's cross-motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact and United is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 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)

556 S.W.3d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanborn-v-worstell-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack