Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Citation
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-10-03
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2273811/chiodini-v-fox/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (32)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
- Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
Full Text
470 charsAppellant, Andrew Chiodini (“Chiodini”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, following a bench trial, entered in favor of Respondents Genia Fox (individually “Fox”) and James Winkler (individually “Winkler”) (collectively “Fox-Winkler”). The trial court found that Chiodini’s breach of lease claim was meritless because he breached the implied warranty of habitability and awarded Fox-Winkler their security deposit as damages. We affirm.