Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 71068 Attorney(S) Kenneth C. Jones, St. Louis, for plaintiff/appellant. Robert Louis Jackstadt, Richard Kuhlman, St. Louis, for defendants/Respondents. See more information ... Smart Summary Hitchcock v. The University News of St. Louis University, No. 71068 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D., June 10, 1997) Factual and Procedural Background Appellant James Hitchcock filed a libel action against The University News of St. Louis University (the caption also lists Patricia Cummins). Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing: (1) the words alleged to be libelous were not defamatory; (2) the words were expressions of opinion privileged from defamation claims; and (3) appellant failed to specifically plead the words alleged to be libelous or any special damages. The circuit court entered dismissal without specifying the ground. Hitchcock appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three. Legal Issues Presented Whether the words alleged to be libelous were defamatory. Whether the words complained of were expressions of opinion privileged from defamation claims. Whether appellant failed to specifically plead the alleged libelous words or any special damages, warranting dismissal. Arguments of the Parties Respondent's Arguments The alleged words were not defamatory. The statements were expressions of opinion and thus privileged from defamation claims. Appellant failed to plead the specific words alleged to be libelous and failed to allege any special damages. Appellant's Arguments The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments. Table of Precedents Cited No precedents were cited in the provided opinion. Court's Reasoning and Analysis The court reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and concluded there was no error of law in the circuit court's dismissal. The circuit court had not specified which ground supported dismissal; the appellate court determined that issuing a full opinion reciting detailed facts and restating legal principles would have no precedential value and therefore declined to elaborate further, resolving the matter by affirmance under its procedural rule. Holding and Implications AFFIRMED. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal. The direct effect is that appellant's libel claim was dismissed and the dismissal stands. The opinion states that a detailed opinion would have no precedential value, and thus no new precedent was established. Show full summary ... JAMES HITCHCOCK, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. THE UNIVERSITY NEWS OF ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY AND PATRICIA CUMMINS, DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS. ORDER PER CURIAM Appellant James Hitchcock appeals the dismissal of his claim of libel against Respondent The University News of St. Louis University. Respondent's motion to dismiss asserted Appellant failed to state a cause of action because: (1) the words alleged to be libelous were not defamatory; (2) the words complained of were expressions of opinion that are privileged from claims of defamation; and (3) Appellant failed to specifically plead the words alleged to be libelous or any special damages associated with his claim of libel. The circuit court did not specify the ground for its dismissal. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).