Wolff v. Green

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wolff v. Green

401 S.W.3d 579, 2013 WL 3146878, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 735

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 18, 2013·No. No. ED 98873·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Harold and Cindy Wolff appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Respondents Ashwood Apartments, LP, and Baumann Property Company, Inc., on Appellants’ claim of negligence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [580] reasons for this order. The decision 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.

Appellants Harold and Cindy Wolff appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Respondents Ashwood Apartments, LP, and Baumann Property Company, Inc., on Appellants’ claim of negligence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [580] reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Wolff v. Green, 401 S.W.3d 579, 2013 WL 3146878, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 735 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

401 S.W.3d 579 (Wolff v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.