Sherrill v. Merisotes

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sherrill v. Merisotes

891 S.W.2d 900, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 202, 1995 WL 44727

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 1995·No. No. 64443·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered following a jury verdict finding no fault by either party in an automobile collision case. The verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 692[15,16] (Mo. banc 1993).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

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.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered following a jury verdict finding no fault by either party in an automobile collision case. The verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 692[15,16] (Mo. banc 1993).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sherrill v. Merisotes, 891 S.W.2d 900, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 202, 1995 WL 44727 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

891 S.W.2d 900 (Sherrill v. Merisotes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related