Smith v. Portlock

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. Portlock

138 S.W.3d 748, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1336, 2003 WL 22439740

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 26, 2003

DocketNo. ED 82061

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.W.3d 748 (Smith v. Portlock) 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. Portlock, 138 S.W.3d 748, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1336, 2003 WL 22439740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

John Portlock entered a training agreement with the Board of Police Commissioners, completed training and "within two years resigned and accepted employment with another law enforcement agency. The Board sought to enforce a provision in the training agreement in which Portlock agreed that upon such resignation he would reimburse the Board a portion of the costs it expended to train him. The court entered judgment in favor of the Board after a bench trial, and Portlock appeals.

No error of law appears. For the same reasons set forth in Wayman Smith, Board of Police Commissioners v. Craig Kriska, 113 S.W.3d 293 (Mo.App.E.D.2003), handed down today, the judgment is affirmed. Because duplicating that opinion would have no precedential value, this disposition is made under Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

John Portlock entered a training agreement with the Board of Police Commissioners, completed training and "within two years resigned and accepted employment with another law enforcement agency. The Board sought to enforce a provision in the training agreement in which Portlock agreed that upon such resignation he would reimburse the Board a portion of the costs it expended to train him. The court entered judgment in favor of the Board after a bench trial, and Portlock appeals.

No error of law appears. For the same reasons set forth in Wayman Smith, Board of Police Commissioners v. Craig Kriska, 113 S.W.3d 293 (Mo.App.E.D.2003), handed down today, the judgment is affirmed. Because duplicating that opinion would have no precedential value, this disposition is made under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W.3d 748, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1336, 2003 WL 22439740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-portlock-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack