Case Name: Harold David VINSON, in his Representative Capacity as Trustee for The Harold David Vinson Voluntary Trust 1992, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley G. WEIBRECHT and Cecelia M. Weibrecht, Terry W. Hecht and Glenda L. Hecht, Pondarosa Ranch, Inc., Albert Menefee and Valerie Potter Menefee, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-05-19
Citations: 972 S.W.2d 536
Docket Number: No. 73430
Parties: Harold David VINSON, in his Representative Capacity as Trustee for The Harold David Vinson Voluntary Trust 1992, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley G. WEIBRECHT and Cecelia M. Weibrecht, Terry W. Hecht and Glenda L. Hecht, Pondarosa Ranch, Inc., Albert Menefee and Valerie Potter Menefee, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, C.J., and HOFF and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 972
Pages: 536–536

Head Matter:
Harold David VINSON, in his Representative Capacity as Trustee for The Harold David Vinson Voluntary Trust 1992, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley G. WEIBRECHT and Cecelia M. Weibrecht, Terry W. Hecht and Glenda L. Hecht, Pondarosa Ranch, Inc., Albert Menefee and Valerie Potter Menefee, Defendants-Respondents.
No. 73430.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.
May 19, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 8, 1998.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 25, 1998.
Albert C. Lowes, Lowes & Drusch, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.
Alan D. Picou, Toohey, Picou & DiMaggio, Peryvill, for Weibrecht.
Matthew M. Mocherman, Bradshaw, Steele, Cochrane & Berens, Cape Girardeau, for Menefee.
Joe T. Buerkle, Buerkle, Beeson, Ludwig & Jackson, L.C., Jackson, for Pondarosa Ranch, Inc.
Before CRAHAN, C.J., and HOFF and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Harold David Vinson (Vinson) appeals from the trial court's Findings of Fact— Conclusions of Law and Judgment finding the road in dispute to be a public road (not abandoned by non-use) though not publicly maintained. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. The judgment is supported by competent and substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).