Case Name: ST. LOUIS TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 420, AFT, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated organization, by Mary FRANKLIN, its President, and Sandra Cothran, as a Class Representative on behalf of employees of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-03-05
Citations: 921 S.W.2d 69
Docket Number: No. 67497
Parties: ST. LOUIS TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 420, AFT, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated organization, by Mary FRANKLIN, its President, and Sandra Cothran, as a Class Representative on behalf of employees of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 921
Pages: 69–69

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 420, AFT, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated organization, by Mary FRANKLIN, its President, and Sandra Cothran, as a Class Representative on behalf of employees of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Respondent.
No. 67497.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 5, 1996.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 1996.
Application to Transfer Denied May 28, 1996.
Hugh R. Law, Lowenhaupt & Chasnoff, L.L.C., St. Louis, for Appellant.
Kenneth C. Brostron and Nelson G. Wolff, Lashly & Baer, P.C., St. Louis, for Respondent.
Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420, AFT, AFL-CIO and Sandra Cothran, class representative on behalf of the employees of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (Board), appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court in a declaratory judgment action against the Board. The court declared that the Board acted within the scope of its authority when it ordered the cessation of supplemental workers' compensation payments to teachers.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and find there was substantial evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).