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

Case: Jack Kretzer & Associates, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Afshari Enterprises, 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/jack-kretzer-associates-plaintiffrespondent-v-afshari-enterprises-inc-def-13186
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13186
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=Jack+Kretzer+%26+Associates%2C+Plaintiff%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Afshari+Enterprises%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:  Jack Kretzer & Associates, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Afshari Enterprises, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  72774
Handdown Date:  06/23/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert S. Cohen
Counsel for Appellant:  William G. Buchholz
Counsel for Respondent:  Richard A. Tjepkema
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, Jr., P.J, Simon and Hoff, J.J. concur
Opinion:
O R D E R
Afshari Enterprises, Inc., appellant, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, 
entered in favor of respondent, Jack Kretzer & Associates, a corporation.  The court awarded respondent $56,067.69 with 
interest from January 12, 1988 in the amount of $47,096.86, for a total of $103,164.55.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  An opinion restating the principles of law would have no 
precedential value.  A memorandum solely for the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our 
holding. 
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.