Case ID: sw3d_54/html/0725-01.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

Mike WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIDTOWN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. ED 78510.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Sept. 18, 2001.
    William T. Loser, St. Charles, pro se.
    Mike Wright, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
    Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Midtown Tire & Auto Service appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Mike Wright for breach of contract resulting from Midtown’s defective work performed on Mr. Wright’s car. We find 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 (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).