Snelling v. Snipes

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. Snipes

441 S.W.3d 165, 2014 WL 2931957, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 729

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 2014·No. No. ED 100547·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (“Appellant”) appeals from the motion court’s December 2, 2011 order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Pamela Snipes, Julia Woods, Minnie Gibbs, and Toriel Brown (collectively, “Respondents”); and its March 22, 2013 order striking Appellant’s claims against defendant Andre Cortez Whalen. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memo[166] randum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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 (“Appellant”) appeals from the motion court’s December 2, 2011 order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Pamela Snipes, Julia Woods, Minnie Gibbs, and Toriel Brown (collectively, “Respondents”); and its March 22, 2013 order striking Appellant’s claims against defendant Andre Cortez Whalen. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memo[166] randum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Snelling v. Snipes, 441 S.W.3d 165, 2014 WL 2931957, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

441 S.W.3d 165 (Snelling v. Snipes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.