Grommet v. St. Louis County

680 S.W.2d 246, 22 Educ. L. Rep. 578, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4389
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 18, 1984
Docket46687
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 680 S.W.2d 246 (Grommet v. St. Louis County) 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
Grommet v. St. Louis County, 680 S.W.2d 246, 22 Educ. L. Rep. 578, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

SNYDER, Presiding Judge.

At the behest of plaintiff-respondent Robert P. Grommet, his wife and three other couples who are neighbors of the Grommets, the trial court enjoined the County of St. Louis and defendant-appellant Parkway School District from using Canary Avenue 1 as an access road to the staff parking lot in the rear of Parkway’s Wren Hollow Elementary School and ordered St. Louis County to barricade Canary Avenue where it abuts the school parking lot.

Respondents’ petition was originally filed against the County alone in three counts: Count I which sought damages from the County on a theory of inverse condemnation, Count II which requested an injunction abating a nuisance, and Count III which sought damages from the County because of the alleged trespass of the County’s agents.

The trial court granted the County’s motion to join Parkway. Count III was dismissed and Count I was tried separately to a jury. The present case thus represents an appeal from a trial on Count II alone.

The trial court’s judgment on Count II reads in part:

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that a permanent injunction shall issue that the Defendant Parkway School District and St. Louis County and each of them, their agents and employees and all persons acting under their direction or authority of them or either of them be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained from using the aforementioned Canary Avenue access to the Parkway School District property and parking lot which abuts said Canary Avenue for vehicular traffic of any kind and nature whatsoever, effective forthwith. 2
It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that Defendant St. Louis County is hereby directed at its own expense to barricade Canary Avenue where it abuts the aforementioned parking lot in such a fashion that no vehicular traffic may cross from Canary Avenue to Defendant Parkway School District’s parking lot or vice-versa. Such barricade shall be of a size, type and construction as to give effect to this order. The County of St. *249 Louis is ordered to erect the aforesaid barricade forthwith.
Further, the Defendants shall install such signs and give such notice as will notify the public and users of Thrush and Canary Avenues that the streets are not through and are not to be used to reach the school property.

Only Parkway has appealed from the judgment. The judgment is reversed.

Parkway contends the trial court erred: (1) in denying its motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiff’s petition for failure to state a claim against Parkway upon which relief could be granted; (2) in granting the injunction because there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of an actionable nuisance; (3) in granting the injunction because even if a nuisance exists, it was caused by St. Louis County, not Parkway; and (4) in granting the injunction because the burden of abatement was improperly placed on Parkway and the court did not apply the “comparative” rule.

Plaintiffs are eight individual homeowners whose four homes abut Thrush and Canary Avenues in St. Louis County. The sketch below, which was copied from a drawing to scale, shows the streets and roads relevant to the present case and the boundaries of Parkway Wren Hollow Elementary School:

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

Related

CP3 BP Associates, LLC v. CSL Plasma, Inc.
Missouri Court of Appeals, 2022
Cnty. of Boone v. Reynolds
549 S.W.3d 24 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
City of Greenwood v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
299 S.W.3d 606 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Atkinson v. Corson
289 S.W.3d 269 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Vonder Haar Ex Rel. Mehochko v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc.
261 S.W.3d 680 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
Edmunds v. Sigma Chapter of Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity, Inc.
87 S.W.3d 21 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)
City of St. Louis v. Varahi, Inc.
39 S.W.3d 531 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2001)
Jackson v. City of Blue Springs
904 S.W.2d 322 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Union Electric Co. v. City of Jackson
791 S.W.2d 890 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Zweifel v. Zenge
778 S.W.2d 372 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Lee v. Osage Ridge Winery
727 S.W.2d 218 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
680 S.W.2d 246, 22 Educ. L. Rep. 578, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grommet-v-st-louis-county-moctapp-1984.