Case Name: CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mattie F. MURPHY, Defendant/Appellant, and Ardrena McDAVIS, Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-01-14
Citations: 93 S.W.3d 859
Docket Number: No. ED 81195
Parties: CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mattie F. MURPHY, Defendant/Appellant, and Ardrena McDAVIS, Defendant.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J, GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 93
Pages: 859–860

Head Matter:
CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mattie F. MURPHY, Defendant/Appellant, and Ardrena McDAVIS, Defendant.
No. ED 81195.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 14, 2003.
Jayson B. Lenox, Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox, Pashos, L.L.P., for appellant.
Russell M. Zelei, Weldon Spring, for respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J, GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered by default as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule 61.01. No error of law appears. A written 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). Plaintiffs motion to strike and dismiss the appeal is denied as moot.