Case ID: sw3d_113/html/0302-01.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

Wayman F. SMITH, III, Edward M. Roth, Mark W. Smith, Leslie F. Bond, Sr., M.D., and Clarence Harmon, composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Stephen YOUNG, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. ED 81620.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Aug. 26, 2003.
    James M. Martin, Martin, Malee & Leopold, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Patricia A. Hageman, City Counselor, Judith A. Ronzio, City Counselor, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
    Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, a former St. Louis police officer, appeals from the judgment entered in a court-tried case in which the court found defendant had breached his employment contract with plaintiffs, members of the police board, awarded plaintiffs $227.13, plus interest and costs, and denied defendant’s counterclaim. 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, 586 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).