Case Name: James SCHNABLE, Appellant, v. Leslie BOND, et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-10-30
Citations: 66 S.W.3d 41
Docket Number: No. ED 79312
Parties: James SCHNABLE, Appellant, v. Leslie BOND, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 66
Pages: 41–42

Head Matter:
James SCHNABLE, Appellant, v. Leslie BOND, et al., Respondents.
No. ED 79312.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 30, 2001.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 26, 2001.
Application for Transfer Denied Feb. 26, 2002.
C. John Pleban, Law office of Green-burg, Pleban & Fleming, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Priscilla G. Gunn, Law Firm of Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James Schnable appeals from a trial court judgment affirming the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order) of the Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (the Department) terminating his employment as a police officer within the Department. We review the decision of the Board, not the trial court. Bickl v. Smith, 23 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Board's Order is not in excess of its jurisdiction, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, nor is it arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Id. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).