Case Name: John E. MARTIN and Eileen Martin, Plantiffs-Appellants, v. Dorothy CROW, Eugene Johnson, and Geneva Johnson, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-05-09
Citations: 16 S.W.3d 761
Docket Number: No. ED 75726
Parties: John E. MARTIN and Eileen Martin, Plantiffs-Appellants, v. Dorothy CROW, Eugene Johnson, and Geneva Johnson, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 761–761

Head Matter:
John E. MARTIN and Eileen Martin, Plantiffs-Appellants, v. Dorothy CROW, Eugene Johnson, and Geneva Johnson, Defendants-Respondents.
No. ED 75726.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.
May 9, 2000.
Clinton B. Roberts, Tom R. Burcham, III, Farmington, for appellant.
Dennis E. McIntosh, Farmington, for respondent.
Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John and Eileen Martin appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendants Dorothy Crow and Eugene and Geneva Johnson in this action to quiet title to two tracts of land that the Martins claimed they adversely possessed from Defendants. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(1) and deny Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants' Brief or Statement of Facts.