Williams v. PINGELTON

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. PINGELTON

273 S.W.3d 48, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1445, 2008 WL 4621298

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketWD 69408

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 48 (Williams v. PINGELTON) 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. PINGELTON, 273 S.W.3d 48, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1445, 2008 WL 4621298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Williams appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in his legal malpractice action. On appeal, Williams claims that the trial court erred in denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum and in denying his motion to set aside the default judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The • judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Williams appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in his legal malpractice action. On appeal, Williams claims that the trial court erred in denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum and in denying his motion to set aside the default judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The • judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 48, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1445, 2008 WL 4621298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-pingelton-moctapp-2008.