Case Name: Curtis E. PEARMAN, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-10-07
Citations: 122 S.W.3d 599
Docket Number: No. ED 81056
Parties: Curtis E. PEARMAN, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and PAUL J. SIMON, SR. J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 122
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
Curtis E. PEARMAN, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 81056.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Oct. 7, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 10, 2003.
Application for Transfer Denied Jan. 27, 2004.
Thomas R. Jayne, James W. Erwin, William D. Hakes, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
James P. Holloran, Robert H. Wendt, Joel A. Poole, Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Holloran, Wendt & McMath, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and PAUL J. SIMON, SR. J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for plaintiff in a Locomotive Inspection Act case, 49 U.S.C. Sections 20701 el. seq. (1997). The evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient. No error of law appears.
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).