Case Name: James P. MARTIN, Plaintiff/Cross-Respondent/Appellant, v. James S. FLOERCHINGER, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-06-19
Citations: 46 S.W.3d 688
Docket Number: No. ED 77589
Parties: James P. MARTIN, Plaintiff/Cross-Respondent/Appellant, v. James S. FLOERCHINGER, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Sr., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 46
Pages: 688–688

Head Matter:
James P. MARTIN, Plaintiff/Cross-Respondent/Appellant, v. James S. FLOERCHINGER, Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Respondent.
No. ED 77589.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
June 19, 2001.
Gregory P. White, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Gregory Brough, Clayton, MO, for respondent. .
Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Sr., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment in defendant's favor on his claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Plaintiff contends that the weight of the evidence supports his unjust enrichment claim. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.1976). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84 .16(b).