Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling, 524 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Snelling v. Jesse Woodfin Remodeling, 524 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. HENRY JOHN EPENESA (moctapp, 2024-06-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. HENRY JOHN EPENESA
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Isbell, 524 S.W.3d 90, 93 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Andrea Shaunte Straughter (3×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
P. (2018), unless otherwise indicated. 6 the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.” State v. Isbell, 524 S.W.3d 90, 93 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (quoting Jones v. State, 495 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016), overruled on other grounds by State v. Barnett, 577 S.W.3d 124 (Mo. banc 2019)); see Section 563.031.53 (articulating the burden of proof for use of force in defense of persons).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lonnie SNELLING
v.
JESSE WOODFIN REMODELING, Jesse Woodfin, John Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe, and Kashflo, Inc.
No. ED 104699.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mar 28, 2017.
524 S.W.3d 90
2017 WL 1149609
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 224
Lonnie Snelling, St, Louis, MO, pro se., Robert C. Withington, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
Amburg, Dowd, Quigless.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (“Snelling”) appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of the underlying action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Snelling contends the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because (1) he was actively prosecuting the cause of action, and counsel for Defendant Kashflo, Inc. (“Kashflo”) had entered his appearance and filed a motion to dismiss, and (2) he was not given adequate notice .of the pending dismissal, which denied him of his due, process rights. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the circuit court did not clearly err. Ain extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).