Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

516 S.W.3d 375

Spear v. Quinn

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 14, 2017

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2017-03-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2019

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-03-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2Brian W. Spear and Brian Spear Construction Co. (collectively, “Spear”) appeal from the trial court s Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc awarding Jamie L. Quinn (“Quinn”) damages and attorney’s fees on her counterclaim for unlawful retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), stemming from Spear’s suit for malicious prosecution and injurious falsehood. No appeal is taken from the judgment denying Spear’s claims. We affirm.1

¶3We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

¶4The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

¶5. Quinn also filed a motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses in connection with this appeal, which this Court has taken with the case. Based on the MHRA, Section 213.111.2, which states that ‘[t]he court ... may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party,' and the judgment awarded in Quinn’s favor, we find that Quinn is the prevailing party and shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in connection with this appeal, which has been reasonably shown as $33,132.75 up to December 13, 2016.

/516/sw3d/375 · .json · Public domain