# Hamdan v. Board of Police Commissioners

> Missouri Court of Appeals · February 3, 2004 · 130 S.W.3d 671

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104868

## Case

- **Full name:** Wafa HAMDAN v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, Anne Marie Clark, Robert Haar, Jeffrey Jamieson, and Wayman Smith III, In Their Official Capacities as Commissioners on the Board of Police Commissioners for City of St. Louis, and Mayor Clarence Harmon, In his Capacity as Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Police Commissioners, and Chief Ronald Henderson, In his Capacity as Chief of Police for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Lt. Colonel James Hackett, Individually and in his Capacity as Bureau Commander and Police Officer of the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, and Daniel Wagner, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Detective James Long, Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and Major Robert Zambo, Jr., Individually and as a Police Officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants/Respondents
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 3, 2004
- **Citations:** 130 S.W.3d 671; 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 150; 2004 WL 193241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Crane, Hoff, Norton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104868

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in defendants’ favor granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of her amended petition and defendants’ motion to dismiss Count III of her amended petition. On appeal plaintiff challenges the disposition of Count III. We affirm.
The trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its judgment. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104868. Public record. Not legal advice.