American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Zimmerman

Missouri Court of Appeals

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Zimmerman

470 S.W.3d 793, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 952, 2015 WL 5575278

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 22, 2015·No. No. ED 102407·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

American Multi-Cinema, Inc., (AMC) appeals from the decision and order of the State Tax Commission of Missouri (the Commission) setting aside decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, related to tangible personal property owned by AMC. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. [794] The decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

American Multi-Cinema, Inc., (AMC) appeals from the decision and order of the State Tax Commission of Missouri (the Commission) setting aside decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, related to tangible personal property owned by AMC. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. [794] The decision and order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 470 S.W.3d 793, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 952, 2015 WL 5575278 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

470 S.W.3d 793 (American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Zimmerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.