Washington v. Martin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Washington v. Martin

275 S.W.3d 320, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2008 WL 5447505

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

DocketED 90214

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 S.W.3d 320 (Washington v. Martin) 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

Washington v. Martin, 275 S.W.3d 320, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2008 WL 5447505 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cordelia Washington, filed a wrongful death action alleging that police officer Anthony Martin, the Respondent, used excessive force in the shooting death of her son, Torrence Mull. After a jury trial, the circuit court of the City of St. Louis entered a judgment in favor of the Respondent. In her two points on appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in allowing Respondent to introduce evidence of specific instances of Mull’s misconduct and his bad grades. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Appellant, Cordelia Washington, filed a wrongful death action alleging that police officer Anthony Martin, the Respondent, used excessive force in the shooting death of her son, Torrence Mull. After a jury trial, the circuit court of the City of St. Louis entered a judgment in favor of the Respondent. In her two points on appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in allowing Respondent to introduce evidence of specific instances of Mull’s misconduct and his bad grades. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 320, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2008 WL 5447505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-martin-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack