Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling

524 S.W.3d 90, 2017 WL 1149609, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 224

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104699

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 90 (Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling) 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

Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling, 524 S.W.3d 90, 2017 WL 1149609, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 224 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (“Snelling”) appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of the underlying action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Snelling contends the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because (1) he was actively prosecuting the cause of action, and counsel for Defendant Kashflo, Inc. (“Kashflo”) had entered his appearance and filed a motion to dismiss, and (2) he was not given adequate notice .of the pending dismissal, which denied him of his due, process rights. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the circuit court did not clearly err. Ain extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (“Snelling”) appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of the underlying action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Snelling contends the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because (1) he was actively prosecuting the cause of action, and counsel for Defendant Kashflo, Inc. (“Kashflo”) had entered his appearance and filed a motion to dismiss, and (2) he was not given adequate notice .of the pending dismissal, which denied him of his due, process rights. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the circuit court did not clearly err. Ain extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 S.W.3d 90, 2017 WL 1149609, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-jesse-woodfin-remodeling-moctapp-2017.