State v. Sipes

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sipes

236 S.W.3d 121, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1469, 2007 WL 3070791

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 23, 2007·No. WD 65887·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Steven Turner (“Turner”) appeals a judgment in favor of the defendant in his suit for damages resulting from a three-car rear-end collision. Turner claims that the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial on that basis. Because evidentiary support is not a prerequisite to a general defense verdict, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court.

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

ORDER

Steven Turner (“Turner”) appeals a judgment in favor of the defendant in his suit for damages resulting from a three-car rear-end collision. Turner claims that the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial on that basis. Because evidentiary support is not a prerequisite to a general defense verdict, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court.

State v. Sipes, 236 S.W.3d 121, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1469, 2007 WL 3070791 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

236 S.W.3d 121 (State v. Sipes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related