Case Name: Jerome S. STEIN, Appellant, v. Pierre L. LABARGE, Jr., and LaBarge, Inc., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-10
Citations: 111 S.W.3d 503
Docket Number: No. ED 81593
Parties: Jerome S. STEIN, Appellant, v. Pierre L. LABARGE, Jr., and LaBarge, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J, BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 111
Pages: 503–503

Head Matter:
Jerome S. STEIN, Appellant, v. Pierre L. LABARGE, Jr., and LaBarge, Inc., Respondents.
No. ED 81593.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 10, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24, 2003.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.
Irl B. Baris, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Leo V. Garvin, Jr., Paul M. Maloney, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Pierre L. La-Barge, Jr.
E.W. Gentry Sayad, St. Louis, MO, for respondent LaBarge, Inc.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J, BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
. While this appeal was pending, Pierre L. LaBarge, Jr. died. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 18, 2003, Joanne Lockard, Lawrence LeGrand and Leo Garvin, Jr., co-personal representatives of the Estate of Pierre L. LaBarge, Jr., were substituted as parties in his place.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jerome S. Stein ("Stein") appeals from the trial court's judgment granting Respondents Pierre L. LaBarge, Jr. and LaBarge, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment. Stein argues the trial court erred in granting Respondents' motions for summary judgment because Respondents failed to make a prima facie showing under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.04 and Stein showed that there were genuine issues of material fact.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).