St. Denis v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

St. Denis v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

71 S.W.3d 242, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2002 WL 452477

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80178

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.W.3d 242 (St. Denis v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.) 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

St. Denis v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 71 S.W.3d 242, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2002 WL 452477 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John St. Denis d/b/a Techserv Associates, Inc. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Summary Judgment entered in favor of Mallinekrodt, Inc. (Respondent) on Appellant’s action for quantum meruit. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, in the light most favorable to the Appellant and giving Appellant the benefit of all reasonable inferences. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). We find the trial court’s entry of Summary Judgment sustainable as a matter of law. Meyer v. Enoch, 807 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Mo.App. E.D.1991). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion [243]*243to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John St. Denis d/b/a Techserv Associates, Inc. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Summary Judgment entered in favor of Mallinekrodt, Inc. (Respondent) on Appellant’s action for quantum meruit. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, in the light most favorable to the Appellant and giving Appellant the benefit of all reasonable inferences. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). We find the trial court’s entry of Summary Judgment sustainable as a matter of law. Meyer v. Enoch, 807 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Mo.App. E.D.1991). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion [243]*243to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.W.3d 242, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2002 WL 452477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-denis-v-mallinckrodt-inc-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack