Snelling v. Segbers

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. Segbers

548 S.W.3d 372

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105773

StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.W.3d 372 (Snelling v. Segbers) 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. Segbers, 548 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Lonnie Snelling ("Appellant") appeals from what appears to be a trial court's judgment in favor of Kevin Segbers ("Respondent") in Appellant's suit for negligent trespass, negligent interference with contract and business expectancy, creating a nuisance, property damages, conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. Respondent requests this Court order Appellant to pay Respondent damages of $5,000 for filing a frivolous appeal, pursuant to Rule 84.19.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *373error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Respondent's prayer for damages is granted in the amount of $5,000. Appellant's Motion for Sanctions is denied.

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

PER CURIAM

Lonnie Snelling ("Appellant") appeals from what appears to be a trial court's judgment in favor of Kevin Segbers ("Respondent") in Appellant's suit for negligent trespass, negligent interference with contract and business expectancy, creating a nuisance, property damages, conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. Respondent requests this Court order Appellant to pay Respondent damages of $5,000 for filing a frivolous appeal, pursuant to Rule 84.19.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *373error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Respondent's prayer for damages is granted in the amount of $5,000. Appellant's Motion for Sanctions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-segbers-moctapp-2018.