Szymula v. Pine Cedars, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Szymula v. Pine Cedars, Inc.

266 S.W.3d 887, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2008 WL 4707205

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketED 90567

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 887 (Szymula v. Pine Cedars, Inc.) 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

Szymula v. Pine Cedars, Inc., 266 S.W.3d 887, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2008 WL 4707205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an action for personal injuries filed by Gail Szymula (Plaintiff) and her husband Donald Szymu-la against Pine Cedars, Inc. and BP Products North America, Inc. (BP). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in (1) directing a verdict in favor of BP, (2) instructing the jury on comparative fault, and (8) refusing to amend the judgment amount to include Plaintiffs costs. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an action for personal injuries filed by Gail Szymula (Plaintiff) and her husband Donald Szymu-la against Pine Cedars, Inc. and BP Products North America, Inc. (BP). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in (1) directing a verdict in favor of BP, (2) instructing the jury on comparative fault, and (8) refusing to amend the judgment amount to include Plaintiffs costs. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 887, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2008 WL 4707205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szymula-v-pine-cedars-inc-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack