Case Name: Willie Mae RANDALL, Appellant, v. Ethel J. KOHM, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-07-09
Citations: 79 S.W.3d 918
Docket Number: No. ED 80247
Parties: Willie Mae RANDALL, Appellant, v. Ethel J. KOHM, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 79
Pages: 918–919

Head Matter:
Willie Mae RANDALL, Appellant, v. Ethel J. KOHM, Respondent.
No. ED 80247.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
July 9, 2002.
Ray B. Marglous, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Russell F. Watters, Ryan J. Gavin, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Willie Mae Randall ("Plaintiff') appeals the judgment of the court denying her motion for new trial or, in the alternative, additur, because the court permitted counsel for Ethel J. Kohm ("Defendant") to make improper comments during closing argument. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion, for their information only, explaining the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).