Case Name: LEMAY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Appellant. v. CMR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-06-09
Citations: 968 S.W.2d 270
Docket Number: No. 73479
Parties: LEMAY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Appellant. v. CMR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, C.J., CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 968
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
LEMAY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Appellant. v. CMR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant/Respondent.
No. 73479.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 9, 1998.
W. Dudley McCarter, Christopher L. Kan-zler, St. Louis, for plaintiffyappellant.
Brian E. McGovern, Michael E. Kaemmerer, Kevin T. McLaughlin, Chesterfield, for defendant/respondent.
Before CRAHAN, C.J., CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiffs recission action. 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. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).