Case ID: sw2d_886/html/0163-02.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

Marice HANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. CARROLL-KEHOE, Defendant-Respondent.
    No. 65126.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Oct. 25, 1994.
    Kenneth A. Leeds, Law Offices of Roskin & Leeds, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
    K. Steven Jones, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
    Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and trial court judgment for defendant in a negligence case. The verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 692[15, 16] (Mo. banc 1993).

An opinion reciting the detaüed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

We affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).