Case Name: Wayman F. SMITH, III, Edward M. Roth, Mark W. Smith, Leslie F. Bond, Sr., M.D., and Clarence Harmon, composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Stephen YOUNG, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-08-26
Citations: 113 S.W.3d 302
Docket Number: No. ED 81620
Parties: Wayman F. SMITH, III, Edward M. Roth, Mark W. Smith, Leslie F. Bond, Sr., M.D., and Clarence Harmon, composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Stephen YOUNG, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 113
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Wayman F. SMITH, III, Edward M. Roth, Mark W. Smith, Leslie F. Bond, Sr., M.D., and Clarence Harmon, composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Stephen YOUNG, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 81620.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 26, 2003.
James M. Martin, Martin, Malee & Leopold, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Patricia A. Hageman, City Counselor, Judith A. Ronzio, City Counselor, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, a former St. Louis police officer, appeals from the judgment entered in a court-tried case in which the court found defendant had breached his employment contract with plaintiffs, members of the police board, awarded plaintiffs $227.13, plus interest and costs, and denied defendant's counterclaim. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 586 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential 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).