Hemphill Contracting Co. v. Board of Adjustment

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hemphill Contracting Co. v. Board of Adjustment

810 S.W.2d 517, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 264, 1991 WL 22327

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 1991·No. No. 57983·Published

Opinion

[518]*518ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s order which found plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish nonconforming use.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

[518]*518ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s order which found plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish nonconforming use.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Hemphill Contracting Co. v. Board of Adjustment, 810 S.W.2d 517, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 264, 1991 WL 22327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

810 S.W.2d 517 (Hemphill Contracting Co. v. Board of Adjustment) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.