Whitehead v. Washington University

Missouri Court of Appeals

Whitehead v. Washington University

496 S.W.3d 599, 2016 WL 2894852, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 504

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103077

StatusPublished

This text of 496 S.W.3d 599 (Whitehead v. Washington University) 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

Whitehead v. Washington University, 496 S.W.3d 599, 2016 WL 2894852, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, the defendants, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Washington University, and Dr. Steven Hunt, appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting a new trial to the plaintiffs, Kristi and Jonathon Whitehead. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, the defendants, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Washington University, and Dr. Steven Hunt, appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting a new trial to the plaintiffs, Kristi and Jonathon Whitehead. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 S.W.3d 599, 2016 WL 2894852, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-washington-university-moctapp-2016.