Case Name: Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT CORP., (LRA) et al., Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2010-12-14
Citations: 326 S.W.3d 849
Docket Number: No. ED 94561
Parties: Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT CORP., (LRA) et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 326
Pages: 849–849

Head Matter:
Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS DEVELOPMENT CORP., (LRA) et al., Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 94561.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 14, 2010.
Lonnie Snelling, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Jane Berman Shaw, Assistant City Counselor, St. Louis, MO, for respondent City of St. Louis.
Linda L. Hahn, Hahn, Enright & Hansen, St. Louis, MO, for respondent O’Fal-lon III, L.P.
Leslie Yancy, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Land Utilization Authority of the City of St. Louis.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).