Schilt v. Care Broadcasting, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schilt v. Care Broadcasting, Inc.

245 S.W.3d 930, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 258, 2008 WL 490920

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

DocketWD 67663

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 S.W.3d 930 (Schilt v. Care Broadcasting, Inc.) 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

Schilt v. Care Broadcasting, Inc., 245 S.W.3d 930, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 258, 2008 WL 490920 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

CARE Broadcasting, Inc. (“CARE”) appeals a judgment in favor of Gary and Jeanne Schilt (collectively, “the Schilts”) on the Schilts’ claim for breach of contract when CARE refused to repay a $60,000 loan used to make improvements and upgrades to its radio station. The trial court found that a contract existed between the parties, and ordered CARE to repay the Schilts a portion of the loan, plus interest. CARE contends that the trial court erred in finding a contract due to insufficient evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. As a published formal opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court and the judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

CARE Broadcasting, Inc. (“CARE”) appeals a judgment in favor of Gary and Jeanne Schilt (collectively, “the Schilts”) on the Schilts’ claim for breach of contract when CARE refused to repay a $60,000 loan used to make improvements and upgrades to its radio station. The trial court found that a contract existed between the parties, and ordered CARE to repay the Schilts a portion of the loan, plus interest. CARE contends that the trial court erred in finding a contract due to insufficient evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. As a published formal opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court and the judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 930, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 258, 2008 WL 490920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schilt-v-care-broadcasting-inc-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack