Smith v. Monroe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. Monroe

363 S.W.3d 60, 2011 WL 6299955, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1663

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

DocketED 96657

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 S.W.3d 60 (Smith v. Monroe) 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

Smith v. Monroe, 363 S.W.3d 60, 2011 WL 6299955, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1663 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, John H. Smith, acting pro se, appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants denying his Petition For Conversion of Money and Personal Property in which he sought actual, punitive, and special damages based on the alleged seizure of U.S. currency and other items of personal property from his home on October 2, 2002. All of the defendants, with one exception, were alleged to be employees or officers of a governmental entity. The one exception was alleged to be a co-conspirator with the others. The trial court reviewed the petition pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, section 506.360, et seq. RSMo (2000), and denied the petition with prejudice based on the doctrine of res judicata.

No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the principles of law would have no precedential value.

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.

Plaintiff, John H. Smith, acting pro se, appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants denying his Petition For Conversion of Money and Personal Property in which he sought actual, punitive, and special damages based on the alleged seizure of U.S. currency and other items of personal property from his home on October 2, 2002. All of the defendants, with one exception, were alleged to be employees or officers of a governmental entity. The one exception was alleged to be a co-conspirator with the others. The trial court reviewed the petition pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, section 506.360, et seq. RSMo (2000), and denied the petition with prejudice based on the doctrine of res judicata.

No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the principles of law would have no precedential value.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 S.W.3d 60, 2011 WL 6299955, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-monroe-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack