Case Name: Stuart GOLDENBERG, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy RUSSO, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-12-09
Citations: 272 S.W.3d 473
Docket Number: No. ED 90068
Parties: Stuart GOLDENBERG, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy RUSSO, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 272
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Stuart GOLDENBERG, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy RUSSO, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 90068.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 9, 2008.
Jack Itzkowitz, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
J. Richard McEachern, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in plaintiffs favor in plaintiffs lawsuit to recover an amount owing for services rendered. 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. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (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 pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).