Case Name: Marice HANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. CARROLL-KEHOE, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-10-25
Citations: 886 S.W.2d 163
Docket Number: No. 65126
Parties: Marice HANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. CARROLL-KEHOE, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 886
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Marice HANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. CARROLL-KEHOE, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 65126.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 25, 1994.
Kenneth A. Leeds, Law Offices of Roskin & Leeds, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
K. Steven Jones, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict and trial court judgment for defendant in a negligence case. The verdict is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 692[15, 16] (Mo. banc 1993).
An opinion reciting the detaüed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
We affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).