Williams v. Law & Schriener, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Law & Schriener, LLC

520 S.W.3d 518, 2017 WL 2544288, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 565

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104927

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 518 (Williams v. Law & Schriener, LLC) 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

Williams v. Law & Schriener, LLC, 520 S.W.3d 518, 2017 WL 2544288, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 565 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ernest Williams (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City dismissing his petition without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition because he alleged sufficient facts to establish claims for legal malpractice, negligence, and constructive fraud. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ernest Williams (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City dismissing his petition without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition because he alleged sufficient facts to establish claims for legal malpractice, negligence, and constructive fraud. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 S.W.3d 518, 2017 WL 2544288, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-law-schriener-llc-moctapp-2017.