McGowan v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

McGowan v. City of St. Louis

213 S.W.3d 57, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1506, 2006 WL 2864731

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 2006

DocketED 87180

StatusPublished

This text of 213 S.W.3d 57 (McGowan v. City of St. Louis) 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

McGowan v. City of St. Louis, 213 S.W.3d 57, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1506, 2006 WL 2864731 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark McGowen (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review under Section 536.140 1 and denying the merits of his claim under Section 536.150. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s decision is not unsupported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, erroneously declares the law, or erroneously applies the law. Redpath v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Comm., 14 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark McGowen (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review under Section 536.140 1 and denying the merits of his claim under Section 536.150. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s decision is not unsupported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, erroneously declares the law, or erroneously applies the law. Redpath v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Comm., 14 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.3d 57, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1506, 2006 WL 2864731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack