Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Citation
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-10-03
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1878345/smith-v-thomas/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
Full Text
535 charsIn April 2004, Appellant served notice upon Respondents to vacate the property. On July 8, 2004, Appellant filed a Petition in Unlawful Detainer in the Associate Circuit Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Respondents did not file any responsive pleading to that petition. On December 28, 2004, Appellant filed his First Amended Petition, abandoning his unlawful detainer claims and, instead, simply seeking past due rent, damages, attorney fees, and costs. Respondents did not file a responsive pleading to that petition.