UMFLEET v. Rigdon

Missouri Court of Appeals

UMFLEET v. Rigdon

260 S.W.3d 440, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2008 WL 3843801

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90590

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 440 (UMFLEET v. Rigdon) 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

UMFLEET v. Rigdon, 260 S.W.3d 440, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2008 WL 3843801 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Umfleet appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of John and Elizabeth Rigdon on Umfleet’s vicarious liability and direct negligence claims. We find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Umfleet appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of John and Elizabeth Rigdon on Umfleet’s vicarious liability and direct negligence claims. We find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 440, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2008 WL 3843801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umfleet-v-rigdon-moctapp-2008.