Carrie MCLEOD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cathey BREAK, R.N., an Individual, d/b/a Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics and Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, Inc., Defendants/Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals
· November 8, 2016 · Docket No. ED 103744
509 S.W.3d 815
Syllabus
Carrie MCLEOD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cathey BREAK, R.N., an Individual, d/b/a Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics and Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, Inc., Defendants/Appellants. No. ED 103744 Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO. Filed: November 8, 2016 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 10, 2017 Application for Transfer Denied February 28, 2017 Edward C. Kruse, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff/Respondent. Norbert J.J. Glassl, Sunset Hills, MO, for Defendants/Appellants. Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Full Opinion (756 characters)
ORDER PER CURIAM Cathey Break, R.N., an Individual, d/b/a Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, and Naturally You Permanent Cosmetics, Inc. (Appellants), appeal from the circuit court’s November 16, 2015 judgment denying Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). . All rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.