Fink v. City of Maryland Heights

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fink v. City of Maryland Heights

190 S.W.3d 579, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 587, 2006 WL 1149839

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86319

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 579 (Fink v. City of Maryland Heights) 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

Fink v. City of Maryland Heights, 190 S.W.3d 579, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 587, 2006 WL 1149839 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Fink (“Fink”) appeals from the judgment finding in favor of the City of Maryland Heights (“the City”) on Fink’s petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus. Fink contends the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of the City because he had an unconditional right to permanent appointment to the position of lieutenant with the City police department.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The City’s motion to dismiss that was taken with the case is hereby denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Fink (“Fink”) appeals from the judgment finding in favor of the City of Maryland Heights (“the City”) on Fink’s petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus. Fink contends the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of the City because he had an unconditional right to permanent appointment to the position of lieutenant with the City police department.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The City’s motion to dismiss that was taken with the case is hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 579, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 587, 2006 WL 1149839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fink-v-city-of-maryland-heights-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack