Spier v. Middlecamp

Missouri Court of Appeals

Spier v. Middlecamp

924 S.W.2d 341, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175, 1996 WL 360974

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1996

DocketNo. 68869

StatusPublished

This text of 924 S.W.2d 341 (Spier v. Middlecamp) 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

Spier v. Middlecamp, 924 S.W.2d 341, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175, 1996 WL 360974 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals following the jury verdict and judgment for defendants in a dog bite case alleging error by reason of the trial court’s refusal to permit her to argue an adverse inference from defendants’ failure to testify. Defendants maintain the adverse inference is not available where, as here, defendants do not present any evidence. Defendants also assert that plaintiff failed to make a submissible case under the standards set forth in Gardner v. Anderson, 417 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App.1967); Frazier v. Stone, 515 S.W.2d 766 (Mo.App.1974); and Crimmins v. Mirly, 675 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App.1984). We agree that plaintiff faded to make a submissi-ble case and therefore deem it unnecessary to reach the issue plaintiff raises on appeal. A detailed opinion would have no prece-dential value. Accordingly, 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.

Plaintiff appeals following the jury verdict and judgment for defendants in a dog bite case alleging error by reason of the trial court’s refusal to permit her to argue an adverse inference from defendants’ failure to testify. Defendants maintain the adverse inference is not available where, as here, defendants do not present any evidence. Defendants also assert that plaintiff failed to make a submissible case under the standards set forth in Gardner v. Anderson, 417 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App.1967); Frazier v. Stone, 515 S.W.2d 766 (Mo.App.1974); and Crimmins v. Mirly, 675 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App.1984). We agree that plaintiff faded to make a submissi-ble case and therefore deem it unnecessary to reach the issue plaintiff raises on appeal. A detailed opinion would have no prece-dential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 S.W.2d 341, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175, 1996 WL 360974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spier-v-middlecamp-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack