Singer v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Singer v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

268 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2008 WL 4204719

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

DocketED 90792

StatusPublished

This text of 268 S.W.3d 432 (Singer v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION) 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

Singer v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 268 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2008 WL 4204719 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marc Singer (Singer) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting a motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) on Singer’s small claims petition alleging property damage.

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 would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 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

PER CURIAM.

Marc Singer (Singer) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting a motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) on Singer’s small claims petition alleging property damage.

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 would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2008 WL 4204719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-starbucks-corporation-moctapp-2008.