State ex rel. Hickerson v. Fife

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Hickerson v. Fife

398 S.W.3d 903, 2013 WL 1615611, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 461

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 16, 2013·No. No. ED 99219·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Relator Eric B. Hickerson appeals the judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We find that the trial court did- not err in denying Hickerson’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

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

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Relator Eric B. Hickerson appeals the judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We find that the trial court did- not err in denying Hickerson’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

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

State ex rel. Hickerson v. Fife, 398 S.W.3d 903, 2013 WL 1615611, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 461 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

398 S.W.3d 903 (State ex rel. Hickerson v. Fife) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.