Case ID: sw2d_948/html/0724-01.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 PUCHALLA, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING & EQUIPMENT CO., INC., d/b/a Indeeco, by and through its division, Solitech, a Missouri Corporation, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 71411.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    July 29, 1997.
    Robert L. DeVoto, Robert L. DeVoto, L.C., St. Louis, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
    Melanie R. King, David A. Streubel, Gallop, Johnson & Neumann, L.C., St. Louis, for Defendant/Respondent.
    Before CRANE, P.J. and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment against it in its action to recover commissions from defendant pursuant to a contract. The judgment of the trial court is supported by the essentially uncon-troverted evidence, is in accord with the law, and correctly applies the law. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a statement setting forth the basis of our affirmance. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s brief is denied.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).