Sandfort v. Phase II Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Ass'n

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sandfort v. Phase II Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Ass'n

522 S.W.3d 912, 2017 WL 2436922, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 551

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 2017

DocketWD 79755

StatusPublished

This text of 522 S.W.3d 912 (Sandfort v. Phase II Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Ass'n) 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

Sandfort v. Phase II Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Ass'n, 522 S.W.3d 912, 2017 WL 2436922, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 551 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

■ PER CURIAM: ■

Roger E. Sandfort and Roger B. Sand-fort appeal- the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Association, Inc.; Emerald Bay Amenities, Inc.; and Patrick Schmickley. on the Sandforts’ petition alleging malicious prosecution directed at a previously dismissed • civil suit. The uncontroverted facts establish that the Defendants relied on the advice of their counsel, and the grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. Affirmed Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

■ PER CURIAM: ■

Roger E. Sandfort and Roger B. Sand-fort appeal- the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Emerald Bay Condominium Owners Association, Inc.; Emerald Bay Amenities, Inc.; and Patrick Schmickley. on the Sandforts’ petition alleging malicious prosecution directed at a previously dismissed • civil suit. The uncontroverted facts establish that the Defendants relied on the advice of their counsel, and the grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. Affirmed Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 S.W.3d 912, 2017 WL 2436922, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandfort-v-phase-ii-emerald-bay-condominium-owners-assn-moctapp-2017.