Case ID: sw2d_901/html/0281-01.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

William RUMMEL and Mildred Rummel, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Dana HOCKENSMITH, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 66956.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    May 23, 1995.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 26, 1995.
    Application to Transfer Denied July 25, 1995.
    John S. Sandberg, Lyndon P. Sommer, Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., St. Louis, for appellants.
    Charles E. Reis, TV, Steven D. Asher, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.
    Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order for summary judgment against their legal malpractice claims. We affirm. Because we do not discern any precedential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order, The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).