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

Case: Effie Weibert, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant/Appellant/Cross-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/effie-weibert-et-al-plaintiffsrespondentscross-appellants-v-wal-mart-stor-13473
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13473
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=Effie+Weibert%2C+et+al.%2C+Plaintiffs%2FRespondents%2FCross-Appellants%2C+v.+Wal-Mart+Stores%2C+Inc.%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant%2FCross-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:  Effie Weibert, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Case Number:  73382 and 73383
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Jack L. Koehr
Counsel for Appellant:  Jeffrey K. Suess, Adrian P. Sulser and Todd L. Beekley
Counsel for Respondent:  David O. Danis, T. Evan Schaeffer and Craig J. Concannon
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  J. Dowd, P.J., Crahan and Teitelman, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict arising out of Plaintiffs fall in Defendant's parking lot. 
Plaintiffs cross-appeal the trial court's reduction of the judgment due to the jury's finding that Plaintiff was comparatively at 
fault.  We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law.  An extended opinion 
would have no precedential value.  The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), with costs assessed to Defendant.
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.