Treasure v. Paul

Missouri Court of Appeals

Treasure v. Paul

59 S.W.3d 924, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2063, 2001 WL 1464436

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 2001

DocketNo. ED 79206

StatusPublished

This text of 59 S.W.3d 924 (Treasure v. Paul) 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

Treasure v. Paul, 59 S.W.3d 924, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2063, 2001 WL 1464436 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Treasure, Betty Crane, Tara Folce, Thea Treasure, and Thad Treasure (collectively Appellants) appeal from a trial court judgment entered in accordance [925]*925with a jury verdict in favor of Vanessa Paul (Paul) on Appellants’ Petition for wrongful death and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial due to Paul’s counsel’s comments during his opening statement, Cole ex rel. Cole v. Warren County R-III School Dist., 23 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo.App. E.D.2000), and that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Paul’s counsel’s comments during his closing argument. Rule 84.13(c).¹ 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 Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Treasure, Betty Crane, Tara Folce, Thea Treasure, and Thad Treasure (collectively Appellants) appeal from a trial court judgment entered in accordance [925]*925with a jury verdict in favor of Vanessa Paul (Paul) on Appellants’ Petition for wrongful death and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial due to Paul’s counsel’s comments during his opening statement, Cole ex rel. Cole v. Warren County R-III School Dist., 23 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo.App. E.D.2000), and that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Paul’s counsel’s comments during his closing argument. Rule 84.13(c).¹ 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 Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.W.3d 924, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2063, 2001 WL 1464436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasure-v-paul-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack