St. Mary's Health Center v. Harden

Missouri Court of Appeals

St. Mary's Health Center v. Harden

481 S.W.3d 880, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1256, 2015 WL 8229237

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102194

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 880 (St. Mary's Health Center v. Harden) 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. Mary's Health Center v. Harden, 481 S.W.3d 880, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1256, 2015 WL 8229237 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donald Harden (Defendant) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion to set aside a default judgment. In two points on appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by entering a default judgment against him for failure to appear because he “answered the summons and appeared before the [trial] court[;]” and (2) misapplied Rule 74.05 in denying Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donald Harden (Defendant) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion to set aside a default judgment. In two points on appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by entering a default judgment against him for failure to appear because he “answered the summons and appeared before the [trial] court[;]” and (2) misapplied Rule 74.05 in denying Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 880, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1256, 2015 WL 8229237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-marys-health-center-v-harden-moctapp-2015.