MOHART v. City of Kirkwood

Missouri Court of Appeals

MOHART v. City of Kirkwood

233 S.W.3d 769, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1317, 2007 WL 2769451

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 89276

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 769 (MOHART v. City of Kirkwood) 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

MOHART v. City of Kirkwood, 233 S.W.3d 769, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1317, 2007 WL 2769451 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John and Mary Mohart (“the Moharts”) appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Kirkwood, Missouri; Mayor Mike Swoboda; Thomas J. Noonan; Arthur J. McDonnell; Michael H.T. Lynch; Joseph E. Godi; Connie Karr; and Timothy E. Griffin (collectively referred to herein as “Kirkwood”). The Moharts argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Kirkwood be *770 cause the denial of their application for rezoning was arbitrary and capricious. The Moharts also claim the court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims for damages because the denial of the application for rezoning gives rise to such claims.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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 of the trial court 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John and Mary Mohart (“the Moharts”) appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Kirkwood, Missouri; Mayor Mike Swoboda; Thomas J. Noonan; Arthur J. McDonnell; Michael H.T. Lynch; Joseph E. Godi; Connie Karr; and Timothy E. Griffin (collectively referred to herein as “Kirkwood”). The Moharts argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Kirkwood be *770 cause the denial of their application for rezoning was arbitrary and capricious. The Moharts also claim the court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims for damages because the denial of the application for rezoning gives rise to such claims.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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 of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 769, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1317, 2007 WL 2769451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohart-v-city-of-kirkwood-moctapp-2007.