Waller v. WATSON-WESLEY COLEMAN

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waller v. WATSON-WESLEY COLEMAN

272 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2008 WL 4634347

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 90734

StatusPublished

This text of 272 S.W.3d 328 (Waller v. WATSON-WESLEY COLEMAN) 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

Waller v. WATSON-WESLEY COLEMAN, 272 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2008 WL 4634347 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sharolynne Waller (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her nine count petition against Denise J. Watson-Wesley and White, Ovletrea & Watson, L.C. Appellant raises eight points on appeal challenging several alleged procedural errors committed by the trial court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Sharolynne Waller (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her nine count petition against Denise J. Watson-Wesley and White, Ovletrea & Watson, L.C. Appellant raises eight points on appeal challenging several alleged procedural errors committed by the trial court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2008 WL 4634347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waller-v-watson-wesley-coleman-moctapp-2008.