Case Name: A & J.G., INC., Appellant, v. Harry EGGLESTON, Eagle Eye Care Inc., and Cosmetic Laser Center of Creve Coeur, L.L.C., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-05-02
Citations: 16 S.W.3d 744
Docket Number: No. ED 76712
Parties: A & J.G., INC., Appellant, v. Harry EGGLESTON, Eagle Eye Care Inc., and Cosmetic Laser Center of Creve Coeur, L.L.C., Respondents.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
A & J.G., INC., Appellant, v. Harry EGGLESTON, Eagle Eye Care Inc., and Cosmetic Laser Center of Creve Coeur, L.L.C., Respondents.
No. ED 76712.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
May 2, 2000.
Michael B. Stern, Clayton, for appellant.
Gregory P. White, Clayton, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A & JG Inc. appeals the trial court's judgment denying it relief on its breach of contract claim against Harry Eggleston, et al. 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. Carrón, 5B6 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)(1).