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

Case: John J. Nooney, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nooney Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-j-nooney-plaintiff-respondent-v-nooney-company-defendant-appellant-16613
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16613
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=John+J.+Nooney%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent%2C+v.+Nooney+Company%2C+Defendant-Appellant.&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:  John J. Nooney, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nooney Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 70783
Handdown Date:  07/29/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. John K. Kintz
Counsel for Appellant:  Michael A. Kahn and David A. Streubel
Counsel for Respondent:  Peter W. Herzog and Michael A. Vitale
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Rhodes Russell, P.J.,  Simon and Karohl, JJ., concur.
Opinion:

ORDER
The Nooney Company appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of its former officer, John 
Nooney, indemnifying him pursuant to an agreement for expenses he incurred on behalf of the company.  We affirm.
An extended opinion would serve no precedential value.  However, the parties have been furnished with a 
memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.  The judgment is affirmed 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.