NILGUN SACAKLI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

NILGUN SACAKLI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST v. City of St. Louis

347 S.W.3d 182, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2011 WL 3808551

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95989

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.W.3d 182 (NILGUN SACAKLI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 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

NILGUN SACAKLI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST v. City of St. Louis, 347 S.W.3d 182, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2011 WL 3808551 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Nilgun Sacakli Revocable Living Trust, by Necmettin Sacakli, as trustee and Necmettin Sacakli (“the Owners”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting the City of St. Louis’s (“the City”) motion to dismiss because the Owners’ petition for damages and other relief was untimely according to Section 536.110, RSMo 2000. 1 The Owners allege five points on appeal, three of which have to do with whether this was a contested case, which would affect the timeliness of their petition. The other two points concern whether notice of the judgment was properly mailed to the parties and who the proper parties to the case were.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Nilgun Sacakli Revocable Living Trust, by Necmettin Sacakli, as trustee and Necmettin Sacakli (“the Owners”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting the City of St. Louis’s (“the City”) motion to dismiss because the Owners’ petition for damages and other relief was untimely according to Section 536.110, RSMo 2000. 1 The Owners allege five points on appeal, three of which have to do with whether this was a contested case, which would affect the timeliness of their petition. The other two points concern whether notice of the judgment was properly mailed to the parties and who the proper parties to the case were.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 182, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2011 WL 3808551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nilgun-sacakli-revocable-living-trust-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-2011.