Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: American Network Services, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Special Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/american-network-services-inc-plaintiffrespondent-v-special-services-inc-12797
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12797
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=American+Network+Services%2C+Inc.%2C+Plaintiff%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Special+Services%2C+Inc.%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: criminal-law)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  American Network Services, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Special Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  72210
Handdown Date:  04/28/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Henry E. Autrey, Jr.
Counsel for Appellant:  Patrick J. McCarthy
Counsel for Respondent:  Peter L. LeJeune
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Special Services, Inc. ("Special Services") appeals from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis 
City, in favor of American Network Services, Inc. ("American Network") in a breach of contract suit.  We find 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, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 
order.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.