Wilson v. HAMMERT'S IRON WORKS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. HAMMERT'S IRON WORKS, INC.

190 S.W.3d 422, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 298, 2006 WL 618279

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

DocketED 85877

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 422 (Wilson v. HAMMERT'S IRON WORKS, INC.) 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

Wilson v. HAMMERT'S IRON WORKS, INC., 190 S.W.3d 422, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 298, 2006 WL 618279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Hammert’s Iron Works, Inc. (Ham-mert’s) appeals the trial court’s judgments, entered after a non-jury trial, declaring the non-compete provisions of the parties’ Employment and Non-Competition Agreement, executed July 31, 1993, (Agreement) remained in force until December 31, 2004; awarding Kenny W. Wilson specified sums of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs; and denying Hammert’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the non-compete provisions of the parties’ Agreement. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgments are supported by substantial evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgments pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. The trial court’s denial of Wilson’s claim for vacation pay is not raised on appeal.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Hammert’s Iron Works, Inc. (Ham-mert’s) appeals the trial court’s judgments, entered after a non-jury trial, declaring the non-compete provisions of the parties’ Employment and Non-Competition Agreement, executed July 31, 1993, (Agreement) remained in force until December 31, 2004; awarding Kenny W. Wilson specified sums of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs; and denying Hammert’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the non-compete provisions of the parties’ Agreement. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgments are supported by substantial evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgments pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. The trial court’s denial of Wilson’s claim for vacation pay is not raised on appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 422, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 298, 2006 WL 618279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-hammerts-iron-works-inc-moctapp-2006.