Zeiser v. Tajkarimi

Missouri Court of Appeals

Zeiser v. Tajkarimi

265 S.W.3d 357, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2008 WL 4402443

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 2008

DocketED 90399

StatusPublished

This text of 265 S.W.3d 357 (Zeiser v. Tajkarimi) 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

Zeiser v. Tajkarimi, 265 S.W.3d 357, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2008 WL 4402443 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald K. Zeiser (hereinafter, “Zeiser”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury returned a verdict in favor of Amir Tajkarimi and Three Rivers Systems, Inc. (hereinafter and collectively, “Three Rivers”) on his claim of breach of contract. Zeiser asserts Three Rivers had no defense against his claims for breach of contract and damages and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the *358 reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald K. Zeiser (hereinafter, “Zeiser”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury returned a verdict in favor of Amir Tajkarimi and Three Rivers Systems, Inc. (hereinafter and collectively, “Three Rivers”) on his claim of breach of contract. Zeiser asserts Three Rivers had no defense against his claims for breach of contract and damages and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the *358 reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.W.3d 357, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2008 WL 4402443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeiser-v-tajkarimi-moctapp-2008.