Case Name: Carlyn & Carol JOHNSON, Appellants, v. VEE-JAY CEMENT CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 128 S.W.3d 528
Docket Number: No. ED 82996
Parties: Carlyn & Carol JOHNSON, Appellants, v. VEE-JAY CEMENT CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 128
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
Carlyn & Carol JOHNSON, Appellants, v. VEE-JAY CEMENT CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
No. ED 82996.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 2004.
Bradley S. Dede, St. Louis, MO, for appellants.
Susan M. Herold, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carlyn and Carol Johnson appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining Vee-Jay Cement's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Johnsons' petition with prejudice. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err by sustaining Vee-Jay's motion for summary judgment. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).