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

Case: Ernest C. Brazzle, Appellant, v. City of Florissant, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: employment
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ernest-c-brazzle-appellant-v-city-of-florissant-respondent-17128
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17128
Related Practice Areas:
- Employment Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=employment&ott_archive_query=Ernest+C.+Brazzle%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+City+of+Florissant%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+employment%3B+text%3A+discrimination&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: employment; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: employment, text: discrimination, text: retaliation)

---
## 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:  Ernest C. Brazzle, Appellant, v. City of Florissant, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71339
Handdown Date:  06/27/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. James R. Hartenbach
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  Before Russell, P.J.; Simon and Karohl, JJ.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Appellant, Ernest C. Brazzle, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of 
respondent, the City of Florissant, on his claims of age discrimination, handicap discrimination, and retaliation, allegedly 
resulting in his discharge from the Florissant Police Department.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal.  The trial court's judgment is supported by 
substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.  No error of law appears.  An opinion would have no 
precedential value.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.