Case ID: sw3d_93/html/0859-01.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

CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mattie F. MURPHY, Defendant/Appellant, and Ardrena McDAVIS, Defendant.
    No. ED 81195.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Jan. 14, 2003.
    Jayson B. Lenox, Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox, Pashos, L.L.P., for appellant.
    Russell M. Zelei, Weldon Spring, for respondent.
    Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J, GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered by default as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule 61.01. No error of law appears. A written 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 the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Plaintiffs motion to strike and dismiss the appeal is denied as moot.