Case Name: CROMER MOTORS, INC. and Gregory Cromer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Gregory A. WITENGIER and J. Lee Witengier, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-08-03
Citations: 999 S.W.2d 259
Docket Number: No. 75500
Parties: CROMER MOTORS, INC. and Gregory Cromer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Gregory A. WITENGIER and J. Lee Witengier, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 999
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
CROMER MOTORS, INC. and Gregory Cromer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Gregory A. WITENGIER and J. Lee Witengier, Defendants/Respondents.
No. 75500.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 3, 1999.
James C. Ochs, St. Louis, for appellants.
Jack F. Allen, Clayton, for respondents.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in defendants' favor on plaintiffs' malicious prosecution action. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b)