Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Citation
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006) 2004.
- 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
559 chars2004. Appellant also presented a payment ledger indicating that no rent had been received for those months. On the other hand, both Respondents testified that they had paid rent in the amount of $1,500 each of those months and that their bank statements reflected that those payments had cleared. The trial court clearly found Respondents’ testimony more credible that the evidence offered by Appellant. This court must defer to the trial court’s ability to determine witness credibility and to choose between conflicting evidence. Capital One Bank v. Hardin,