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

Case: Employers Insurance of Wausau, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Sharon Ester-Thames, Defendant/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: employment
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/employers-insurance-of-wausau-plaintiffappellant-v-sharon-ester-thames-de-13603
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13603
Related Practice Areas:
- Employment Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=employment&ott_archive_query=Employers+Insurance+of+Wausau%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Sharon+Ester-Thames%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+employment&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: employment; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: employment)

---
## 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:  Employers Insurance of Wausau, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Sharon Ester-Thames, 
Defendant/Respondent.
Case Number:  73703
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant:  Party Acting Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent:  Ernie Brasier
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Hoff, P.J., Gaertner and Rhodes Russell, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant in this breach of trust action.  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, 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 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.