Case Name: Richard BRESLIN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-08-01
Citations: 28 S.W.3d 356
Docket Number: No. ED 76998
Parties: Richard BRESLIN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J. and HOFF, J. and PUDLOWSKI, S. J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Richard BRESLIN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 76998.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Aug. 1, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 7, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied Oct. 31, 2000.
Mary Anne Sedey, Jon A. Ray, St. Louis, for appellant.
Mickes, Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, P.C., Thomas E. Tueth, Melanie G. Keeney, Cheryl M. Manley, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J. and HOFF, J. and PUDLOWSKI, S. J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Richard D. Breslin appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court upon the granting of summary judgment in favor of Saint Louis University (University) in this breach of contract action related to Breslin's employment by University.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Upon de novo review, we find no genuine issue of material fact or error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).