Seyer v. Sievers

Missouri Court of Appeals

Seyer v. Sievers

324 S.W.3d 493, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1519, 2010 WL 4483508

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 2010

DocketED 94151

StatusPublished

This text of 324 S.W.3d 493 (Seyer v. Sievers) 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

Seyer v. Sievers, 324 S.W.3d 493, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1519, 2010 WL 4483508 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Sievers, et al. appeals the trial court’s decision that Matthew Seyer was entitled to a statutory way of necessity. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. We find the ruling in Hill v. Kennoy, Inc., 522 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. banc 1975) to be dispositive.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The trial court’s 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

PER CURIAM.

Brian Sievers, et al. appeals the trial court’s decision that Matthew Seyer was entitled to a statutory way of necessity. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. We find the ruling in Hill v. Kennoy, Inc., 522 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. banc 1975) to be dispositive.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 S.W.3d 493, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1519, 2010 WL 4483508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seyer-v-sievers-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack