Case Name: Sally ROSS, Appellant, v. CROW BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a Trammell Crow Company, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-11-29
Citations: 186 S.W.3d 289
Docket Number: No. ED 85596
Parties: Sally ROSS, Appellant, v. CROW BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a Trammell Crow Company, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 186
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
Sally ROSS, Appellant, v. CROW BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a Trammell Crow Company, Respondent.
No. ED 85596.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Nov. 29, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 9, 2006.
Application for Transfer Denied April 11, 2006.
Matthew J. Ghio, Chackes, Carlson and Spritzer, LLP, St. Louis, for appellant.
Krissa P. Lubben, Amy E. Clendennen, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, Mary C. Dollarhide, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, San Diego, CA, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Sally Ross ("Ross"), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, entered after a jury trial, in favor of Respondent, Crow Brokerage Company, Inc. D/B/A Trammell Crow Company ("Crow Brokerage"). Ross had filed a wrongful discharge claim against Crow Brokerage asserting she was discharged in violation of a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.