KIPPENBERGER v. WALGREEN CO., 447 S.W.3d 737 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco150311000768
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM . Ronald Kippenberger (Plaintiff) appeals the circuit court's judgment denying Plaintiffs motion for a continuance and dismissing his personal injury claim with prejudice against Walgreen Company (Defendant). On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and dismissing his claim because the circuit court ignored that Plaintiffs counsel's physical ailments necessitated the continuance. We affirm. We have revi
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM . Ronald Kippenberger (Plaintiff) appeals the circuit court's judgment denying Plaintiffs motion for a continuance and dismissing his personal injury claim with prejudice against Walgreen Company (Defendant). On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and dismissing his claim because the circuit court ignored that Plaintiffs counsel's physical ailments necessitated the continuance. We affirm. We have revie..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Kippenberger (Plaintiff) appeals the circuit court's judgment denying Plaintiffs motion for a continuance and dismissing his personal injury claim with prejudice against Walgreen Company (Defendant). On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and dismissing his claim because the circuit court ignored that Plaintiffs counsel's physical ailments necessitated the continuance. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
