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

Case: Earl Tolliver and Zeola Adams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lucille Mays, Defendant-Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/earl-tolliver-and-zeola-adams-plaintiffs-appellants-v-lucille-mays-defend-13480
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13480
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=Earl+Tolliver+and+Zeola+Adams%2C+Plaintiffs-Appellants%2C+v.+Lucille+Mays%2C+Defendant-Respondent.&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:  Earl Tolliver and Zeola Adams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lucille Mays, Defendant-Respondent.
Case Number:  73401
Handdown Date:  06/02/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Robert H. Dierker, Jr.
Counsel for Appellant:  Melvin L. Raymond
Counsel for Respondent:  John T. Hawk
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
O R D E R 
Earl Tolliver and Zeola Adams (Appellants) appeal from the trial court's Order and Judgment granting Lucille 
Mays's motion to strike, dismiss, and quash Appellants' petition to contest will. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal.  No error of law appears.  An opinion would 
have no precedential value.  We affirm 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.