Case Name: Mike WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIDTOWN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE, Respondent-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-09-18
Citations: 54 S.W.3d 725
Docket Number: No. ED 78510
Parties: Mike WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIDTOWN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 54
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Mike WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIDTOWN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE, Respondent-Appellant.
No. ED 78510.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Sept. 18, 2001.
William T. Loser, St. Charles, pro se.
Mike Wright, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Midtown Tire & Auto Service appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Mike Wright for breach of contract resulting from Midtown's defective work performed on Mr. Wright's car. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).