McCLELLAND v. KRUSE, 323 S.W.3d 36 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco110210000750
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2010
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Donald McClelland appeals from the dismissal of his petition for legal malpractice against Russell Kruse. McClelland contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because the statute of limitations had not run on his claim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have bee
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Donald McClelland appeals from the dismissal of his petition for legal malpractice against Russell Kruse. McClelland contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because the statute of limitations had not run on his claim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Donald McClelland appeals from the dismissal of his petition for legal malpractice against Russell Kruse. McClelland contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because the statute of limitations had not run on his claim.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
