Smith v. O'TOOLE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. O'TOOLE

93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2003 WL 105198

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 14, 2003·No. ED 80423·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gregory O’Toole, (“appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County finding him liable to respondents, William S. Smith and Roxanne Smith (“respondents”) in the amount of $5,845.72. Respondents filed a cause of action against appellant for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in regards to the replacement of a septic system. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and conclude the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, 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.

Appellant, Gregory O’Toole, (“appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County finding him liable to respondents, William S. Smith and Roxanne Smith (“respondents”) in the amount of $5,845.72. Respondents filed a cause of action against appellant for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in regards to the replacement of a septic system. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and conclude the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Smith v. O'TOOLE, 93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2003 WL 105198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

93 S.W.3d 854 (Smith v. O'TOOLE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related