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

Case: Dorothy M. Buder, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. G.A. Buder, III, Theodore Buder, Marshall Buder, Defendants/Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dorothy-m-buder-plaintiffappellant-v-ga-buder-iii-theodore-buder-marshall-13519
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13519
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Dorothy+M.+Buder%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+G.A.+Buder%2C+III%2C+Theodore+Buder%2C+Marshall+Buder%2C+Defendants%2FRespondents.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: criminal-law)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Dorothy M. Buder, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. G.A. Buder, III, Theodore Buder, Marshall Buder, 
Defendants/Respondents.
Case Number:  73480
Handdown Date:  10/20/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford
Counsel for Appellant:  Mike W. Bartolacci, Charles Baron and Lorna Frahm
Counsel for Respondent:  John R. Barsanti, J., Clark H. Cole, and Patrick J. Kenny
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Dorothy M. Buder (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted Count I of Appellant's Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Accounting.  In this 
lawsuit, Appellant seeks a declaration that she may now withdraw her 1956 renunciation of a contingent interest in her 
grandfather's estate. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal.   No error of law appears.   An extended 
opinion would have no precedential value.  Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 
order affirming the judgment pursuant to 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.