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

Case: Julia Lawshe and Charles Wesley Lawshe, Sr., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Mickey Ball, et al., Defendant/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: employment
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julia-lawshe-and-charles-wesley-lawshe-sr-plaintiffsappellants-v-mickey-b-17261
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17261
Related Practice Areas:
- Employment Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=employment&ott_archive_query=Julia+Lawshe+and+Charles+Wesley+Lawshe%2C+Sr.%2C+Plaintiffs%2FAppellants%2C+v.+Mickey+Ball%2C+et+al.%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+employment&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: employment; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: employment)

---
## 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:  Julia Lawshe and Charles Wesley Lawshe, Sr., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Mickey Ball, et al., 
Defendant/Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71511
Handdown Date:  05/13/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Douglas Long
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED. Before Lawrence G. Crahan, P.J., Stanley A. Grimm, J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Opinion:

ORDER
Plaintiff Julia Lawshe appeals the summary judgment in favor of defendant Mickey Ball on her action 
against defendant for personal injuries.  The trial court determined that defendant was immune from personal 
liability on the ground of co-employee immunity pursuant to Workers' Compensation statute section 287.120.1 
RSMo 1986. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law.  An opinion 
reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.  We affirm 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.