Case Name: Anthony DANIELE and Beth Daniele, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 347 S.W.3d 486
Docket Number: No. ED 95037
Parties: Anthony DANIELE and Beth Daniele, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
Anthony DANIELE and Beth Daniele, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 95037.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
May 3, 2011.
Stephen B. Evans, Katherine E. Hum-mel, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Kenneth J. Heinz, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, Anthony and Beth Dan-iele, appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County against them and in favor of the defendant, the Missouri Department of Conservation, on the Department's counterclaim for breach of agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.
An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(5).