Case Name: Helen GARRETT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIERBERG'S MACKENZIE POINT, L.P., Caplaco Twenty-Two, Inc., and Nancy Sammelman Exler, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-05-15
Citations: 43 S.W.3d 904
Docket Number: No. ED 78097
Parties: Helen GARRETT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIERBERG’S MACKENZIE POINT, L.P., Caplaco Twenty-Two, Inc., and Nancy Sammelman Exler, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 43
Pages: 904–905

Head Matter:
Helen GARRETT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIERBERG’S MACKENZIE POINT, L.P., Caplaco Twenty-Two, Inc., and Nancy Sammelman Exler, Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 78097.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 15, 2001.
James S. Collins, II, James A. Bax, Law Offices of James S. Collins, II, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Gary E. Snodgrass, Anne-Marie Risavy, Rabbit, Pitzer & Snodgrass, P.C., Robert J. Wulff, Amelung, Wulff & Willenbrock, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Helen Garrett, appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial after the court entered its judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict in favor of defendants, Dierberg's Mackenzie Point L.P., Caplaco Twenty-Two, Inc. and Nancy Sammelman Exler. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying the motion because the verdict was clearly unsupported by and against the weight of the evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).