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

Case: William H. Stallings, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The Pride Organization, Inc., et al., Defendants/Appellants.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-h-stallings-plaintiffrespondent-v-the-pride-organization-inc-et-a-12884
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12884
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=William+H.+Stallings%2C+Plaintiff%2FRespondent%2C+v.+The+Pride+Organization%2C+Inc.%2C+et+al.%2C+Defendants%2FAppellants.&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:  William H. Stallings, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The Pride Organization, Inc., et al., 
Defendants/Appellants.
Case Number:  72407
Handdown Date:  03/31/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Stephen Goldman
Counsel for Appellant:  Joe A. Johnson
Counsel for Respondent:  Eugene Portman and Wrenn Terrill Kates
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crane, P.J., Russell and J. Dowd, J.J. concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Respondent filed a suit to compel specific performance of a promissory note.  Appellants raised fraud in the 
procurement as an affirmative defense.  Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. 
Appellants appeal.
The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.  No error of law 
appears.   A written opinion would have no precedential value.   However, we have provided the parties with a 
memorandum, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.
The judgment of the trial court 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.