Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Citation
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Parent Document
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2017-07-25
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5448716/boehm-v-allen/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Boehm v. Allen, 524 S.W.3d 542 (2017)
- Section 512
- Section 512
- Section 512
- Section 512
- Section 512
- Section 512
Full Text
273 charsIn Point I, Allen contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for continuance. Allen argues that because she filed her request for a continuance before the return date of the summons, the court was required to continue the unlawful de-tainer case. We agree.