Schottel v. Aig Direct Ins. Servs., Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schottel v. Aig Direct Ins. Servs., Inc.

579 S.W.3d 329

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 6, 2019

DocketNo. ED 107062

StatusPublished

This text of 579 S.W.3d 329 (Schottel v. Aig Direct Ins. Servs., 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

Schottel v. Aig Direct Ins. Servs., Inc., 579 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs James W. Schottel, Jr. and Schottel & Associates, P.C. (collectively, "Appellants") appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their one-count petition against Lifelock, Inc. and AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. (collectively, "Respondents"), which alleged violations of the electronic mail practices act, Section 407.1123.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs James W. Schottel, Jr. and Schottel & Associates, P.C. (collectively, "Appellants") appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their one-count petition against Lifelock, Inc. and AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. (collectively, "Respondents"), which alleged violations of the electronic mail practices act, Section 407.1123.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 S.W.3d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schottel-v-aig-direct-ins-servs-inc-moctapp-2019.