Case Name: Barbara TUREEN, Appellant, v. ZIERCHER & HOCKER, P.C., Edward Fehlig and Christopher Karlen, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-10-15
Citations: 92 S.W.3d 159
Docket Number: No. ED 80553
Parties: Barbara TUREEN, Appellant, v. ZIERCHER & HOCKER, P.C., Edward Fehlig and Christopher Karlen, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 92
Pages: 159–159

Head Matter:
Barbara TUREEN, Appellant, v. ZIERCHER & HOCKER, P.C., Edward Fehlig and Christopher Karlen, Respondent.
No. ED 80553.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 15, 2002.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 18, 2002.
Application for Transfer Denied Jan. 28, 2003.
Daniel R. Schramm, Chesterfield, MO, for Appellant.
Lawrence B. Grebel, James R. Cantalin, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Barbara Tureen (hereinafter, "Client") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Ziercher & Hoeker, P.C. on her claim for legal malpractice. Client claims the trial court erred in refusing to submit her proposed negligence instruction and in submitting a contributory negligence instruction.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the legal file, and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury in this case. Higby v. Wein, 996 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An opinion reciting the de-tañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Riñe 84.16(b).