Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006

Gupton v. Andrew Johnson's Construction

Gupton v. Andrew Johnson's Construction
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided May 9, 2006 · Baker, Dowd, Sullivan
191 S.W.3d 679; 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 639; 2006 WL 1229157 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Gupton v. Andrew Johnson's Construction

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Johnson’s Construction (Defendant) appeals from a trial court judgment entered against it and in favor of Thomas E. Gupton and Sharon Gupton (collectively Plaintiffs) for $2,650.00 in damages on Plaintiffs’ petition for breach of contract. Defendant asserts that the evidence of damages was insufficient to support the trial court judgment. We have reviewed Defendant’s brief1 and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in entering the judgment, as the record contains sufficient evidence of damages under the diminished value standard for measuring damages. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

. Plaintiffs did not file a Respondent’s brief.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.