Case Name: Wafa HAMDAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, Anne Marie Clark, Robert Haar, Jeffrey Jamieson, and Wayman Smith III, In Their Official Capacities as Commissioners on the Board of Police Commissioners for City of St. Louis, and Mayor Clarence Harmon, In his Capacity as Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Police Commissioners, and Chief Ronald Henderson, In his Capacity as Chief of Police for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Lt. Colonel James Hackett, Individually and in his Capacity as Bureau Commander and Police Officer of the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, and Daniel Wagner, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Detective James Long, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Major Robert Zambo, Jr., Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-02-03
Citations: 130 S.W.3d 671
Docket Number: No. ED 82900
Parties: Wafa HAMDAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, Anne Marie Clark, Robert Haar, Jeffrey Jamieson, and Wayman Smith III, In Their Official Capacities as Commissioners on the Board of Police Commissioners for City of St. Louis, and Mayor Clarence Harmon, In his Capacity as Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Police Commissioners, and Chief Ronald Henderson, In his Capacity as Chief of Police for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Lt. Colonel James Hackett, Individually and in his Capacity as Bureau Commander and Police Officer of the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, and Daniel Wagner, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Detective James Long, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Major Robert Zambo, Jr., Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 130
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
Wafa HAMDAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, Anne Marie Clark, Robert Haar, Jeffrey Jamieson, and Wayman Smith III, In Their Official Capacities as Commissioners on the Board of Police Commissioners for City of St. Louis, and Mayor Clarence Harmon, In his Capacity as Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Police Commissioners, and Chief Ronald Henderson, In his Capacity as Chief of Police for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Lt. Colonel James Hackett, Individually and in his Capacity as Bureau Commander and Police Officer of the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, and Daniel Wagner, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Detective James Long, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Major Robert Zambo, Jr., Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 82900.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Feb. 3, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied April 27, 2004.
Stephen H. Gilmore, Donald V. Nangle, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Edward J. Hanlon, Craig Higgins, City Counselor, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in defendants' favor granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of her amended petition and defendants' motion to dismiss Count III of her amended petition. On appeal plaintiff challenges the disposition of Count III. We affirm.
The trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its judgment. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).