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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 2003

DocketED 80423

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2003 WL 105198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-otoole-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack