TSEVIS v. Rourke

Missouri Court of Appeals

TSEVIS v. Rourke

344 S.W.3d 842, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 2011 WL 2139804

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2011

DocketED 95389

StatusPublished

This text of 344 S.W.3d 842 (TSEVIS v. Rourke) 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

TSEVIS v. Rourke, 344 S.W.3d 842, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 2011 WL 2139804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Tsevis and Peter Enterprises, Inc. appeals the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of John W. Rourke, Thomas J. Niemann, and Reinert & Rourke, P.C. (collectively referred to as “Attorneys”) and a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Attorneys and Christopher Tsevis and CRT Businesses, LLC (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). We find that the trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Attorneys, and the court did not err in entering judgment upon the jury verdict in favor of Defendants.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Tsevis and Peter Enterprises, Inc. appeals the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of John W. Rourke, Thomas J. Niemann, and Reinert & Rourke, P.C. (collectively referred to as “Attorneys”) and a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Attorneys and Christopher Tsevis and CRT Businesses, LLC (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). We find that the trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Attorneys, and the court did not err in entering judgment upon the jury verdict in favor of Defendants.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 S.W.3d 842, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 2011 WL 2139804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsevis-v-rourke-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack