Ayanna Baldwin, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethel Chapman, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

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: Ayanna Baldwin, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethel Chapman, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Case Number: No. 72043 Handdown Date: 07/29/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Mark D. Seigel Counsel for Appellant: Benjamin Hudson, Jr. Counsel for Respondent: Douglas W. King and Julius H. Berg Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur. Opinion:

ORDER Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's judgment granting Defendants' summary judgment motions. We affirm. In reviewing Plaintiffs' brief, we note that it does not contain points relied on, but instead, contains a section entitled "SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT." This section includes two questions for the court. As presented, neither of these questions meets the requirements set out in Rule 84.04(d). They do not state wherein and why the trial court erred. We need not review these points. See Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.banc 1978) (points on appeal that are not in accordance with Rule 84.04(d) need not be reviewed). Ex gratia, however, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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.