Case Name: KAB DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. ST. CHARLES COUNTY, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant, and U.S. Bank, Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-07-26
Citations: 172 S.W.3d 826
Docket Number: No. ED 85270
Parties: KAB DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. ST. CHARLES COUNTY, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant, and U.S. Bank, Defendant.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 826–826

Head Matter:
KAB DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. ST. CHARLES COUNTY, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant, and U.S. Bank, Defendant.
No. ED 85270.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
July 26, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 6, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 1, 2005.
Daniel K. Barklage, Barklage, Brett, Martin, Wibbenmeyer & Hamill, P.C., St. Charles, MO, for respondent.
Greg H. Dohrman, Assistant County Counselor, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
St. Charles County appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of KAB Development, Inc. in a dispute over the parties' obligations under an escrow agreement. 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, 32 (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).