Case Name: SKYLINE DISPLAYS MIDSTATES, INC., Appellant, v. SKYLINE DISPLAYS, INC., et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-11-26
Citations: 91 S.W.3d 151
Docket Number: No. ED 80744
Parties: SKYLINE DISPLAYS MIDSTATES, INC., Appellant, v. SKYLINE DISPLAYS, INC., et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 91
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
SKYLINE DISPLAYS MIDSTATES, INC., Appellant, v. SKYLINE DISPLAYS, INC., et al., Respondents.
No. ED 80744.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Nov. 26, 2002.
Beth C. Boggs, St. Louis, MO, for appellant Skyline Displays Midstates.
Lisa M. Wood, Jeffery T. McPherson, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Skyline Displays, Inc.
James P. Leonard, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Richard Klimek, et al.
Philip C. Graham, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Deranick (n/k/a Smith) Bowen, Cfik/a Romitti) & Twenter.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Skyline Displays Midstates, Inc. ("Mid-states") appeals from the trial court's dismissal of its third amended petition and the grant of a motion to dismiss a count in its second amended petition filed by Skyline Displays, Inc. We find no error and affirm.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).