Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Chris and Carol Armacost, Respondent, v. Redmond Building Corporation, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: corporate
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chris-and-carol-armacost-respondent-v-redmond-building-corporation-appell-19410
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=19410
Related Practice Areas:
- Corporate Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=corporate&ott_archive_query=Chris+and+Carol+Armacost%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Redmond+Building+Corporation%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+corporate%3B+text%3A+corporation&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: corporate; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: corporate, text: corporation)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  Chris and Carol Armacost, Respondent, v. Redmond Building Corporation, Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 53779
Handdown Date:  08/12/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Platte County, Hon. James W. Van Amburg
Counsel for Appellant:  John E. Redmond
Counsel for Respondent:  Steven H. Mustoe
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Berrey, P.J., Spinden and Smart, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Redmond Building Corporation appeals the judgment in a breach of contract case.  Having considered the 
arguments on appeal, the court concludes that the judgment should be affirmed.  A published opinion would have no 
precedential value.  A memorandum as to the reasons for the decision has been furnished to the parties. 
The judgment is affirmed.  Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.