Hayes v. St. Louis County

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hayes v. St. Louis County

510 S.W.3d 897, 2017 WL 676726

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104198

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 897 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. St. Louis County, 510 S.W.3d 897, 2017 WL 676726 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[898]*898ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Louis County (“St. Louis County” or the “County”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering the St. Louis County Department of Public Works to issue Marion Hayes (“Hayes”) an electrical contractor license. The County raises two points on appeal. First, the County argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Hayes’s ■action. Second, the County argues Hayes did not meet his burden of proving he satisfied the requirements for licensure in St. Louis County under section 67.275 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2008.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

[898]*898ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Louis County (“St. Louis County” or the “County”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering the St. Louis County Department of Public Works to issue Marion Hayes (“Hayes”) an electrical contractor license. The County raises two points on appeal. First, the County argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Hayes’s ■action. Second, the County argues Hayes did not meet his burden of proving he satisfied the requirements for licensure in St. Louis County under section 67.275 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2008.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 897, 2017 WL 676726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-st-louis-county-moctapp-2017.