Case ID: sw3d_118/html/0623-01.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

DRURY DISPLAYS, INC., d/b/a DDI Media, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CLAYTON INVESTMENT CORP., Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellant, and NOAMTC, d/b/a North American Trailer Centers, Third-Party Defendant.
    No. ED 82160.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Sept. 2, 2003.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 16, 2003.
    Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 25, 2003.
    Jones, Haywood, Bick, Kistner, & Jones, P.C., St. Louis, for Appellant.
    Edward M. Godlenhersh, Andrew R. Margrabe, Greensfelder, Hemker Y & Gale, P.C., St. Louis, for Drury Displays, Inc.
    John N. Borbonus, King, Krehbiel, Hell-mich, Hentz & Borbonus, LLC, St. Louis, for NOAMTC.
    Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Investment Corporation appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Drury Displays, Inc. d/b/a DDI Media and NOAMTC, d/b/a North American Trailer Centers. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).