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

Case: Tim Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. City of Jennings, 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/tim-jones-plaintiff-respondent-v-city-of-jennings-defendant-appellant-13029
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13029
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=Tim+Jones%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent%2C+v.+City+of+Jennings%2C+Defendant-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:  Tim Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. City of Jennings, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Number:  72706
Handdown Date:  01/27/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of The City of St. Louis, Hon. Julian L. Bush
Counsel for Appellant:  Lloyd E. Eaker
Counsel for Respondent:  Richard A. Barry, III
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:   AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J.,  Simon and Hoff, J.J.
Opinion:
ORDER
The City of Jennings appeals from a judgment in favor of Respondent, Tim Jones, remanding to the City for 
rendition of a written opinion, to include findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The City  argues the court erred in its 
decision to remand.  
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value.  The parties have 
been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.  The judgment is 
affirmed in accordance with 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.