Simpkins v. Hardesty

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simpkins v. Hardesty

787 S.W.2d 737, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1630, 1989 WL 140009

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1989·No. No. 56500·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a small claims petition seeking a $107.00 judgment against defendants for property which he claims was taken from his cell while he was in temporary detention. The small claims court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, and after a trial de novo at which defendants did not appear, the court entered judgment for defendants. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming 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

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a small claims petition seeking a $107.00 judgment against defendants for property which he claims was taken from his cell while he was in temporary detention. The small claims court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, and after a trial de novo at which defendants did not appear, the court entered judgment for defendants. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Simpkins v. Hardesty, 787 S.W.2d 737, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1630, 1989 WL 140009 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

787 S.W.2d 737 (Simpkins v. Hardesty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.