Snelling v. McFadden

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. McFadden

155 S.W.3d 768, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1801, 2004 WL 2660628

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 2004

DocketNo. ED 84725

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 S.W.3d 768 (Snelling v. McFadden) 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. McFadden, 155 S.W.3d 768, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1801, 2004 WL 2660628 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling appeals from orders of the trial court granting defendants Larry T. and Eufabya McFadden’s, Bernice Evans’,¹ and Albert Johnson’s motions to set aside default judgments entered against them and in favor of Snelling.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motions. Hinton v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Mo.App. E.D.2003) (standard of review). No precedential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. 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.

Lonnie Snelling appeals from orders of the trial court granting defendants Larry T. and Eufabya McFadden’s, Bernice Evans’,¹ and Albert Johnson’s motions to set aside default judgments entered against them and in favor of Snelling.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motions. Hinton v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Mo.App. E.D.2003) (standard of review). No precedential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.W.3d 768, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1801, 2004 WL 2660628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-mcfadden-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack