Walters v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walters v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

363 S.W.3d 154, 2012 WL 177402, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 91

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2012

DocketWD 73016

StatusPublished

This text of 363 S.W.3d 154 (Walters v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION) 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

Walters v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, 363 S.W.3d 154, 2012 WL 177402, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 91 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*155 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Lisa Lesher, Tabetha Brei-del-Sturgeon, Jill Reichert, Kristy Bowen, and Jill Reynolds appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Clay County in favor of Respondents Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown College, and Colorado Technical University on their Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claims. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*155 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Lisa Lesher, Tabetha Brei-del-Sturgeon, Jill Reichert, Kristy Bowen, and Jill Reynolds appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Clay County in favor of Respondents Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown College, and Colorado Technical University on their Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claims. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 S.W.3d 154, 2012 WL 177402, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-career-education-corporation-moctapp-2012.