KESSLER v. MONARCH FIRE PROTECTION DIST., 352 S.W.3d 677 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco120208000279
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2011
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Monarch Fire Protection District ("Monarch") appeals the judgment entered on a jury's verdict against it and in favor of Donna Kessler and Dana Buckley. Donna Weiss cross-appeals the judgment entered on the jury's verdict against her and in favor of Monarch. The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not recite them here. We will, however, discuss the facts as they relate to the issues on appeal. We affirm. Prior to oral argument, Kessler and Buckley moved for an a
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Monarch Fire Protection District ("Monarch") appeals the judgment entered on a jury's verdict against it and in favor of Donna Kessler and Dana Buckley. Donna Weiss cross-appeals the judgment entered on the jury's verdict against her and in favor of Monarch. The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not recite them here. We will, however, discuss the facts as they relate to the issues on appeal. We affirm. Prior to oral argument, Kessler and Buckley moved for an aw..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Monarch Fire Protection District ("Monarch") appeals the judgment entered on a jury's verdict against it and in favor of Donna Kessler and Dana Buckley. Donna Weiss cross-appeals the judgment entered on the jury's verdict against her and in favor of Monarch. The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not recite them here. We will, however, discuss the facts as they relate to the issues on appeal. We affirm.
Prior to oral argument, Kessler and Buckley moved for an award of attorneys' fees on appeal. The motion was taken with the case. Monarch did not file a response to the motion objecting to the award of attorneys' fees on appeal. Kessler and Buckley's motion for attorneys' fees on appeal is granted in the amount of $64,930.00 pursuant to Section 213.111.2 RSMo 2000.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
