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

Case: Mary M. King, Respondent, v. Howard Danzig, 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/mary-m-king-respondent-v-howard-danzig-appellant-13587
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13587
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=Mary+M.+King%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Howard+Danzig%2C+Appellant.&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:  Mary M. King, Respondent, v. Howard Danzig, Appellant.
Case Number:  74045
Handdown Date:  10/06/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Robert H. Dierker, Jr.
Counsel for Appellant:  Party Acting Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent:  Douglas Kevin Rush
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Simon, P.J., Knaup Crane and Mooney, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Howard Danzig appeals the trial court's judgment granting Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce and Compel Settlement 
Against Defendant Howard Danzig.  
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.