Tureen v. Ziercher & Hocker, P.C.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tureen v. Ziercher & Hocker, P.C.

92 S.W.3d 159, 2002 WL 31300923

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 15, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80553

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.W.3d 159 (Tureen v. Ziercher & Hocker, P.C.) 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

Tureen v. Ziercher & Hocker, P.C., 92 S.W.3d 159, 2002 WL 31300923 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Tureen (hereinafter, “Client”) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Ziercher & Hoeker, P.C. on her claim for legal malpractice. Client claims the trial court erred in refusing to submit her proposed negligence instruction and in submitting a contributory negligence instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the legal file, and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury in this case. Higby v. Wein, 996 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An opinion reciting the de-tañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Riñe 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Tureen (hereinafter, “Client”) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Ziercher & Hoeker, P.C. on her claim for legal malpractice. Client claims the trial court erred in refusing to submit her proposed negligence instruction and in submitting a contributory negligence instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the legal file, and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury in this case. Higby v. Wein, 996 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An opinion reciting the de-tañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Riñe 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.W.3d 159, 2002 WL 31300923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tureen-v-ziercher-hocker-pc-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack