Chambers v. Nixon

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chambers v. Nixon

432 S.W.3d 266, 2014 WL 1456970, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 424

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 2014·No. No. WD 76672·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darlene Chambers filed a lawsuit against the Governor, the Attorney General, the Department of Corrections, and the Board of Probation & Parole, alleging that the State’s enforcement of § 558.019, RSMo (which establishes minimum prison terms for various criminal offenses) was illegal and a waste of taxpayer money. The State filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding that Chambers lacked standing and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Chambers appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darlene Chambers filed a lawsuit against the Governor, the Attorney General, the Department of Corrections, and the Board of Probation & Parole, alleging that the State’s enforcement of § 558.019, RSMo (which establishes minimum prison terms for various criminal offenses) was illegal and a waste of taxpayer money. The State filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding that Chambers lacked standing and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Chambers appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Chambers v. Nixon, 432 S.W.3d 266, 2014 WL 1456970, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 424 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

432 S.W.3d 266 (Chambers v. Nixon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.