Case Name: Thomas Alexander Mandrafino RUZICKA, By and Through his next friend, Thomas R. RUZICKA, and Thomas R. Ruzicka, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice Lauren MANDRAFINO, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-11-19
Citations: 934 S.W.2d 36
Docket Number: No. 69660
Parties: Thomas Alexander Mandrafino RUZICKA, By and Through his next friend, Thomas R. RUZICKA, and Thomas R. Ruzicka, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice Lauren MANDRAFINO, Respondent-Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 934
Pages: 36–36

Head Matter:
Thomas Alexander Mandrafino RUZICKA, By and Through his next friend, Thomas R. RUZICKA, and Thomas R. Ruzicka, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice Lauren MANDRAFINO, Respondent-Respondent.
No. 69660.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Nov. 19, 1996.
Daniel P. Card, II, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Susan M. Hais, James P. Carmody, Clayton, for respondent-respondent.
Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Thomas R. Ruzicka (Father) appeals from a judgment and decree entered by the trial court in a paternity action. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).