Tibbles Enterprises, LP v. Javier

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tibbles Enterprises, LP v. Javier

198 S.W.3d 200, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224, 2006 WL 2347720

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 2006

DocketED 86677

StatusPublished

This text of 198 S.W.3d 200 (Tibbles Enterprises, LP v. Javier) 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

Tibbles Enterprises, LP v. Javier, 198 S.W.3d 200, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224, 2006 WL 2347720 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Kelly Javier appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of Cape Gir-ardeau County, the Honorable William L. Syler presiding, after the court found in favor of Respondent Tibbies Enterprises, L.P., and held that the personal property in question was abandoned and, thus, vested ownership rights in Tibbies. The trial court also denied Javier’s cross-petition for damages for Tibbles’s alleged conversion of the property.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Kelly Javier appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of Cape Gir-ardeau County, the Honorable William L. Syler presiding, after the court found in favor of Respondent Tibbies Enterprises, L.P., and held that the personal property in question was abandoned and, thus, vested ownership rights in Tibbies. The trial court also denied Javier’s cross-petition for damages for Tibbles’s alleged conversion of the property.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.W.3d 200, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224, 2006 WL 2347720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tibbles-enterprises-lp-v-javier-moctapp-2006.