Atchison v. Porter Poultry, Inc.

Full title: James A. ATCHISON, Respondent, v. PORTER POULTRY, INC., Appellant.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Date published: Feb 4, 2014

420 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

No. ED 98634.

2014-02-4

James A. ATCHISON, Respondent, v. PORTER POULTRY, INC., Appellant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, 0922–CC10150, David L. Dowd, Judge. William Stuart Thomas, John Joseph Fischesser II, Co–Counsel, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant. Thomas Cicardi Devoto, Devoto Law Firm, Andrew William Kuhlmann, Co–Counsel, Kuhlmann LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent (cross-appellant).

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, 0922–CC10150, David L. Dowd, Judge.
William Stuart Thomas, John Joseph Fischesser II, Co–Counsel, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant. Thomas Cicardi Devoto, Devoto Law Firm, Andrew William Kuhlmann, Co–Counsel, Kuhlmann LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent (cross-appellant).
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J., and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Porter Poultry, Inc., (Porter Poultry) appeals from the trial court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of James A. Atchison (Atchison) on Atchison's negligence claim against Porter Poultry.¹ We affirm.

1 Atchison initially filed a cross-appeal, which he subsequently dismissed.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).