Case ID: sw2d_961/html/0915-02.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

BYRNES MILL 206 CORP., et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents. and John V. Harness, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF BYRNES MILL, Ronald Schmidt and Mary Scheble, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
    Nos. 72357, 72435.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Feb. 10, 1998.
    Herbert K. Hoffman, Clayton, for appellants.
    Charles F. Dufour, Bradley J. Bakula, St. Louis, Bedker, Dufour & Yarbrough, C. Finn Sheehan, High Ridge, for respondents.
    Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment against defendants for malicious prosecution and violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983. There is sufficient evidence to support the judgment. No error of law appears.

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 facts and reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

We further grant Byrnes Mill 206 Corporation’s motion for attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal in the amount of $5,466.00.