Schock ex rel. Ernst v. Yassin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schock ex rel. Ernst v. Yassin

496 S.W.3d 598, 2016 WL 2894778, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 506

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103055

StatusPublished

This text of 496 S.W.3d 598 (Schock ex rel. Ernst v. Yassin) 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

Schock ex rel. Ernst v. Yassin, 496 S.W.3d 598, 2016 WL 2894778, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bevis Shock, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor (Trustee) appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Mona Yassin, M.D. on Trustee’s medical negligence action. 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 have, 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

Bevis Shock, Trustee of the Dominic Stephen Ernst Special Needs Trust as Next Friend of Dominic Ernst, a Minor (Trustee) appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Mona Yassin, M.D. on Trustee’s medical negligence action. 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 have, 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)

496 S.W.3d 598, 2016 WL 2894778, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schock-ex-rel-ernst-v-yassin-moctapp-2016.