From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrett v. Dierberg's Mackenzie Point

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
May 15, 2001
43 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED78097

Filed: May 15, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, HON. GARY P. KRAMER.

James S. Collins, II, James A. Bax, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. COLLINS, II 6654 Chippewa, St. Louis, MO 63109 for Appellant.

Gary E. Snodgrass, Robert J. Wulff, RABBIT, PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C., 515 Olive Street, Suite 1700, St. Louis, MO 63101-2608, Anne-Marie Risavy, AMELUNG, WULFF WILLENBROCK, P.C., 800 Market Street, Suite 2300 St. Louis, MO 63101 for Respondent

Before Lawrence E. Mooney, P.J. and Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, JJ.



ORDER


Plaintiff, Helen Garrett, appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial after the court entered its judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict in favor of defendants, Dierberg's Mackenzie Point L.P., Caplaco Twenty-Two, Inc. and Nancy Sammelman Exler. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying the motion because the verdict was clearly unsupported by and against the weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Garrett v. Dierberg's Mackenzie Point

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
May 15, 2001
43 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Garrett v. Dierberg's Mackenzie Point

Case Details

Full title:HELEN GARRETT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIERBERG'S MACKENZIE POINT, L.P.…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four

Date published: May 15, 2001

Citations

43 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)