Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Culver

Missouri Court of Appeals

Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Culver

59 S.W.3d 33, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2001 WL 1034613

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78180

StatusPublished

This text of 59 S.W.3d 33 (Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Culver) 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 Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Culver, 59 S.W.3d 33, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2001 WL 1034613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Culver (hereinafter, “Culver”) appeals from the judgment entered against him in favor of Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages (hereinafter, “SWB”) on SWB’s breach of contract action. Culver claims the trial court erred in forcing him to elect between his counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation and in failing to instruct the jury on his claim for negligent misrepresentation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit the negligent misrepresentation instruction. Hack[34]*34man v. Kindrick, 882 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Ronald Culver (hereinafter, “Culver”) appeals from the judgment entered against him in favor of Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages (hereinafter, “SWB”) on SWB’s breach of contract action. Culver claims the trial court erred in forcing him to elect between his counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation and in failing to instruct the jury on his claim for negligent misrepresentation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit the negligent misrepresentation instruction. Hack[34]*34man v. Kindrick, 882 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.W.3d 33, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2001 WL 1034613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-bell-yellow-pages-inc-v-culver-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack