Case Name: Eugene SLAY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Leo A. WHITESIDE, M.D., Defendant/Respondent, and Dow Corning Wright Corp., Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-01-28
Citations: 103 S.W.3d 144
Docket Number: No. ED 80452
Parties: Eugene SLAY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Leo A. WHITESIDE, M.D., Defendant/Respondent, and Dow Corning Wright Corp., Defendant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J. and ROBERT E. CRIST, SR. J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 103
Pages: 144–144

Head Matter:
Eugene SLAY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Leo A. WHITESIDE, M.D., Defendant/Respondent, and Dow Corning Wright Corp., Defendant.
No. ED 80452.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 28, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 27, 2003.
Application for Transfer Denied May 27, 2003.
Michael A. Gross, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Brent W. Baldwin, Lathrop & Gage, L.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J. and ROBERT E. CRIST, SR. J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in defendant's favor. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
Dr. Whiteside's request to dismiss the appeal as frivolous is denied.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).