SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, LP v. Laclede Gas Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, LP v. Laclede Gas Co.

269 S.W.3d 47, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1481, 2008 WL 4901748

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

DocketED 90966

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W.3d 47 (SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, LP v. Laclede Gas Co.) 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

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, LP v. Laclede Gas Co., 269 S.W.3d 47, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1481, 2008 WL 4901748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laclede Gas Company appeals the judgment in favor of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. f/k/a AT & T Missouri, on Southwestern Bell’s negligence claims (Counts I and III), 1 which alleged that Laclede caused damage to Southwestern Bell’s property. With respect to Count I, we find that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. With respect to Count III, we find that the trial court did not err in excluding a witness’s testimony.

*48 An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s decision is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

1

. In the underlying case, Southwestern Bell filed a six count petition against Laclede. Laclede does not appeal the trial court’s judgment on Counts II, IV, V, or VI.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laclede Gas Company appeals the judgment in favor of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. f/k/a AT & T Missouri, on Southwestern Bell’s negligence claims (Counts I and III), 1 which alleged that Laclede caused damage to Southwestern Bell’s property. With respect to Count I, we find that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. With respect to Count III, we find that the trial court did not err in excluding a witness’s testimony.

*48 An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s decision is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

1

. In the underlying case, Southwestern Bell filed a six count petition against Laclede. Laclede does not appeal the trial court’s judgment on Counts II, IV, V, or VI.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 47, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1481, 2008 WL 4901748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-bell-telephone-lp-v-laclede-gas-co-moctapp-2008.