Walton v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walton v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist.

552 S.W.3d 718

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105728

StatusPublished

This text of 552 S.W.3d 718 (Walton v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist.) 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

Walton v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 552 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*719Elbert A. Walton, Jr. (Appellant) appeals the trial court's summary judgment against him and in favor of Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District (the District), Anthony D. Gray (Gray), and Johnson Gray, LLC (Johnson Gray). Appellant also appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to compel the District to arbitrate the parties' contract dispute and motion to disqualify Gray and Johnson Gray as defense counsel for the District. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).¹

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

PER CURIAM.

*719Elbert A. Walton, Jr. (Appellant) appeals the trial court's summary judgment against him and in favor of Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District (the District), Anthony D. Gray (Gray), and Johnson Gray, LLC (Johnson Gray). Appellant also appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to compel the District to arbitrate the parties' contract dispute and motion to disqualify Gray and Johnson Gray as defense counsel for the District. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 S.W.3d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-ne-ambulance-fire-prot-dist-moctapp-2018.