Case ID: sw3d_111/html/0502-01.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

Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant, v. APOSTLE DEMOLITON, WRECKING AND EXCAVATING, et al., Respondents.
    No. ED 81847.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 10, 2003.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14, 2003.
    Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.
    Lonnie Snelling, St. Louis, pro se.
    Patricia A. Hageman, City Counselor, Lynn M Bohlmann, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE DRAPER III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (Appellant) appeals from the following: (1) the trial court’s order granting St. Louis Development Corporation — LRA’s (LRA) motion to dismiss on Count VI of Appellant’s second amended petition; (2) the trial court’s order granting Apostle Demolition, Wrecking and Excavating’s (Apostle) motion to dismiss Counts V and VI of Appellant’s third amended petition; (3) the trial court’s order granting Apostle’s motion for directed verdict on Counts III and IV of Appellant’s third amended petition; (4) the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in favor of Apostle on Counts I and II of Appellant’s third amended petition; (5) the order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (6) the order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motions to vacate the verdicts, amend the judgment, and for a new trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).