Stonecipher v. Roberts

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stonecipher v. Roberts

534 S.W.3d 922

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105095

StatusPublished

This text of 534 S.W.3d 922 (Stonecipher v. Roberts) 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

Stonecipher v. Roberts, 534 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The plaintiff, Shuri Stonecipher, appeals the summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Knox County in favor of defendant, Vicki Benson Real Estate Professionals, LLC, (“the realty agency”) in this suit for fraud, civil conspiracy, and unlawful merchandising practices in connection with the plaintiffs purchase of a home from defendants, Terrill and Terese Roberts, and listed for sale by the realty agency. The trial court certified its judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), finding that it fully disposed of all issues, rights, and interests between the plaintiff and the realty agency and finding no just reason for delay. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The plaintiff, Shuri Stonecipher, appeals the summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Knox County in favor of defendant, Vicki Benson Real Estate Professionals, LLC, (“the realty agency”) in this suit for fraud, civil conspiracy, and unlawful merchandising practices in connection with the plaintiffs purchase of a home from defendants, Terrill and Terese Roberts, and listed for sale by the realty agency. The trial court certified its judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), finding that it fully disposed of all issues, rights, and interests between the plaintiff and the realty agency and finding no just reason for delay. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.3d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stonecipher-v-roberts-moctapp-2017.