Stewart v. Robinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stewart v. Robinson

233 S.W.3d 232, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2007 WL 2702186

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

DocketED 88916

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 232 (Stewart v. Robinson) 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

Stewart v. Robinson, 233 S.W.3d 232, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2007 WL 2702186 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Robinson ( Robinson ) appeals the judgment of the trial court in favor of Dana Stewart (“Stewart”) on Stewart’s claim of breach of contract. Robinson argues that the trial court improperly concluded that partial performance created an exception to the statute of frauds, the trial court lacked equitable jurisdiction to enter a judgment, and the court erred in granting relief to Stewart because she had unclean hands.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Robinson ( Robinson ) appeals the judgment of the trial court in favor of Dana Stewart (“Stewart”) on Stewart’s claim of breach of contract. Robinson argues that the trial court improperly concluded that partial performance created an exception to the statute of frauds, the trial court lacked equitable jurisdiction to enter a judgment, and the court erred in granting relief to Stewart because she had unclean hands.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 232, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2007 WL 2702186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-robinson-moctapp-2007.