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

Case: Robert J. Barker and Jane Barker, Plainitiffs/Respondents, v. Union Electric Company, Defendant/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: personal-injury
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-j-barker-and-jane-barker-plainitiffsrespondents-v-union-electric-c-13356
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13356
Related Practice Areas:
- Energy: https://ott.law/practice-areas/energy?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=energy&ott_archive_query=Robert+J.+Barker+and+Jane+Barker%2C+Plainitiffs%2FRespondents%2C+v.+Union+Electric+Company%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=6&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+electric+company&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: energy; source: text; score: 6; evidence: text: electric company)

---
## Syllabus

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:  Robert J. Barker and Jane Barker, Plainitiffs/Respondents, v. Union Electric Company, 
Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  73112
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Margaret Neill
Counsel for Appellant:  Idaline L. Hall
Counsel for Respondent:  Mark Ludwig and Douglas Hennon
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Ahrens, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
In this negligence action, Union Electric Company (UE) appeals from the denial of its motion for Judgment 
Notwithstanding the Verdict or for a New Trial brought after a jury verdict and judgment for respondents, Robert J. Barker 
and Jane Barker (Barkers). 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential 
purpose would be served by a written opinion.  However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for 
their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).(FN1)

---

## PER CURIAM

Footnote:
FN1.Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Damages for Frivolous Appeal is denied.

Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.