Case Name: Jeff MARLER and Jodi Marler, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY d/b/a Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-04-15
Citations: 109 S.W.3d 181
Docket Number: No. ED 81037
Parties: Jeff MARLER and Jodi Marler, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY d/b/a Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J. and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 109
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Jeff MARLER and Jodi Marler, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY d/b/a Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 81037.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 15, 2003.
Motions for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 3, 2003.
Josh P. Tolin, Tolin Law Office LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Appellants.
Robert Solomon Rosenthal, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondents.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J. and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jeff Marler and Jodi Marler (collectively Appellants) appeal from the trial court's Summary Judgment in favor of Saint Louis University d/b/a Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Respondent). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude, as the trial court did, that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Fin. v. Mid-Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 871, 381 (Mo.banc 1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).