Case Name: Joseph A. TALLO and Diana Tallo, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Johnny W. SEAY and Megan L. Purcell, Defendants, and Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. d/b/a Billiken Bench Club, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-09-30
Citations: 954 S.W.2d 581
Docket Number: No. 72032
Parties: Joseph A. TALLO and Diana Tallo, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Johnny W. SEAY and Megan L. Purcell, Defendants, and Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. d/b/a Billiken Bench Club, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 954
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Joseph A. TALLO and Diana Tallo, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Johnny W. SEAY and Megan L. Purcell, Defendants, and Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. d/b/a Billiken Bench Club, Defendant/Respondent.
No. 72032.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Sept. 30, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 30, 1997.
Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 25, 1997.
Ray A. Gerritzen (Tallo), St. Louis, for appellant.
A Stephen Pemoud (Grand Lindell Partnr.), John Kemppainen, Jr. (Seay), Jerry R. Wilding (Purcell), St. Louis, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs were injured in a three-vehicle accident. They sued the drivers of both of the other cars and the proprietors of a bar they alleged had sold liquor to one of the drivers while he was obviously intoxicated. Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. ("Grand Lin-dell"), the defendant bar owner, moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against it in that plaintiffs failed to allege that the bar owner was convicted of selling alcohol to a person obviously intoxicated as required by section 537.053.3 RSMo 1994. The trial court granted Grand Lindell's motion and the plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.
No error of law appears. An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).