Wei Wu v. Ace Canada

368 S.W.3d 214, 2012 WL 698362, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 276
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 6, 2012·No. No. ED 96377·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ace Canada a/k/a Ace Ina Insurance Company (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in this garnishment action after a bench trial finding Appellant liable to pay an earlier judgment issued to Wei Wu (Respondent) in the amount of $11,345,681.38. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in its judgment, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to amend its pleadings. Dye v. Division of Child Support Enforcement Dept. of Social Services, State of Mo., 811 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Mo.banc 1991). 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).

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

Wei Wu v. Ace Canada, 368 S.W.3d 214, 2012 WL 698362, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 276 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

368 S.W.3d 214 (Wei Wu v. Ace Canada) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related