Case ID: sw3d_272/html/0473-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stuart GOLDENBERG, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy RUSSO, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. ED 90068.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Dec. 9, 2008.
    Jack Itzkowitz, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    J. Richard McEachern, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    
      Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in plaintiffs favor in plaintiffs lawsuit to recover an amount owing for services rendered. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).