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

Case: Audrey L. Reichardt, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Robert J. Smith and Minnie H. Smith, Defendants/Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/audrey-l-reichardt-plaintiffappellant-v-robert-j-smith-and-minnie-h-smith-13118
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13118
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=Audrey+L.+Reichardt%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Robert+J.+Smith+and+Minnie+H.+Smith%2C+Defendants%2FRespondents.&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:  Audrey L. Reichardt, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Robert J. Smith and Minnie H. Smith, 
Defendants/Respondents.
Case Number:  72638
Handdown Date:  04/14/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Washington County, Hon. James H. Kelly
Counsel for Appellant:  Arthur G. Muegler, Jr.
Counsel for Respondent:  Gael D. Wood and James W. McGettigan, Jr.
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Knaup Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Plaintiff landowner appeals the judgment of trial court in defendants' favor in an unlawful detainer case.  The trial 
court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.  No error of law 
appears.  Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts 
and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with 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.