Case Name: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ENTERTAINMENT I, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL VIDEO SERVICES, INC., and Hunter's Glen General Partnership, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. City of Chesterfield, Third-Party Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-04-24
Citations: 44 S.W.3d 442
Docket Number: No. ED 78373
Parties: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ENTERTAINMENT I, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL VIDEO SERVICES, INC., and Hunter’s Glen General Partnership, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. City of Chesterfield, Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J„ and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 44
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ENTERTAINMENT I, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL VIDEO SERVICES, INC., and Hunter’s Glen General Partnership, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. City of Chesterfield, Third-Party Defendant.
No. ED 78373.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 24, 2001.
Mary B. Schultz, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Clark K. Cole, Patrick J. Kenny, (Hunter’s Glen), Richard B. Walsh, (SW Bell Video), St. Louis, MO, Douglas Ryder Beach, (City of Chesterfield), Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J„ and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications ("Charter"), appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Southwestern Bell Video Services, Inc. ("SBVS"), and Hunter's Glen General Partnership ("Hunter's Glen"), on (1) all seven counts of Charter's Amended Verified Petition; and (2) SBVS and Hunter's Glen's third-party claim against the City of Chesterfield.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).