Case Name: Nancy VALENTA and Richard Valenta, Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-05-24
Citations: 168 S.W.3d 604
Docket Number: No. ED 84556
Parties: Nancy VALENTA and Richard Valenta, Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 168
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
Nancy VALENTA and Richard Valenta, Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.
No. ED 84556.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
May 24, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 18, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 30, 2005.
Richard L. Hughes, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Patricia A. Hageman, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Nancy Valenta ("Valenta") appeals the judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis ("the City") on her negligence action against the City. Valenta asserts numerous claims of error regarding evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Specifically, Valen-ta challenges the trial court's decision to allow her expert witness to be cross-examined regarding the total billing for forensic engineering in the year 2003, the trial court's exclusion of evidence of special damages, and the trial court's rulings on certain objections to the City's closing argument. Valenta also argues that the verdict was the result of bias, passion and prejudice of the jury, and she claims that the verdict was the result of juror misconduct. Finally, Valenta alleges that the cumulative effect of these errors warrants reversal.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).