City of Sedalia v. Dumsday

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Sedalia v. Dumsday

488 S.W.3d 732, 2016 WL 2338415, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 442

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2016

DocketWD 78965

StatusPublished

This text of 488 S.W.3d 732 (City of Sedalia v. Dumsday) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Sedalia v. Dumsday, 488 S.W.3d 732, 2016 WL 2338415, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 442 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert and Bessie Dumsday appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to City of Sedalia, Missouri (“the city”) on its petition for an order to remove the Dumsdays from their property so that the city could demolish the home there, which constituted a public nuisance pursuant to the city’s Code of Ordinances. The Dumsdays claim that the order of the city’s Board of Appeals. (“Board”) was not final because it made contradictory declarations and because it ordered future time[733]*733ly performance by Dumsdays, but they were not notified of any right to a further hearing when-they were determined not to have met the requirements of the order. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert and Bessie Dumsday appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to City of Sedalia, Missouri (“the city”) on its petition for an order to remove the Dumsdays from their property so that the city could demolish the home there, which constituted a public nuisance pursuant to the city’s Code of Ordinances. The Dumsdays claim that the order of the city’s Board of Appeals. (“Board”) was not final because it made contradictory declarations and because it ordered future time[733]*733ly performance by Dumsdays, but they were not notified of any right to a further hearing when-they were determined not to have met the requirements of the order. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 S.W.3d 732, 2016 WL 2338415, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-sedalia-v-dumsday-moctapp-2016.