Arnold v. City of Florissant

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnold v. City of Florissant

871 S.W.2d 145, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, 1994 WL 67141

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 1994·No. No. 64420·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a police officer of the City of Florissant, appeals the judgment of the circuit court affirming the disciplinary action imposed against him by the Florissant Personnel Commission. The Commission’s decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and is not in violation of constitutional provisions or in excess of statutory authority. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information setting forth the facts and reasons for which the trial court’s judgment is affirmed 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.

Appellant, a police officer of the City of Florissant, appeals the judgment of the circuit court affirming the disciplinary action imposed against him by the Florissant Personnel Commission. The Commission’s decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and is not in violation of constitutional provisions or in excess of statutory authority. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information setting forth the facts and reasons for which the trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Arnold v. City of Florissant, 871 S.W.2d 145, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, 1994 WL 67141 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

871 S.W.2d 145 (Arnold v. City of Florissant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.