From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mudd v. Barton

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Nov 17, 2015
476 S.W.3d 308 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

Opinion

No. ED 102679

11-17-2015

Micah Mudd, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Amber Barton, Defendant/Appellant.

James W. Schottel, Jr. 906 Olive Street, Suite PH St. Louis, MO 63101 Schottel & Associates, P.C., for Appellant. Pamela Palmer Patton 9300 Dielman Industrial Drive, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63132 David Jay Weimer, Co–Counsel 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64106, Kramer & Frank, for Respondent.


James W. Schottel, Jr. 906 Olive Street, Suite PH St. Louis, MO 63101 Schottel & Associates, P.C., for Appellant.

Pamela Palmer Patton 9300 Dielman Industrial Drive, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63132 David Jay Weimer, Co–Counsel 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64106, Kramer & Frank, for Respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Amber Barton (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to set aside and vacate a judgment entered against her on September 16, 2010. We affirm.

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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Mudd v. Barton

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Nov 17, 2015
476 S.W.3d 308 (E.D. Mo. 2015)
Case details for

Mudd v. Barton

Case Details

Full title:Micah Mudd, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Amber Barton, Defendant/Appellant.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Date published: Nov 17, 2015

Citations

476 S.W.3d 308 (E.D. Mo. 2015)