RIXLEBEN v. City of Hazelwood

Missouri Court of Appeals

RIXLEBEN v. City of Hazelwood

248 S.W.3d 18, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 43, 2008 WL 123930

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketED 89556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 S.W.3d 18 (RIXLEBEN v. City of Hazelwood) 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

RIXLEBEN v. City of Hazelwood, 248 S.W.3d 18, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 43, 2008 WL 123930 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Rixleben (“Owner”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court related to litigation that he instituted against the City of Hazelwood (“Hazelwood”). Owner specifically is appealing from: (1) the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hazelwood on his claims; (2) the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hazelwood on its counterclaims; (3) the award of attorneys’ fees to Hazel-wood; and (4) the denial of his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on his petition and his motion for a new trial.

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.

Jeffrey Rixleben (“Owner”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court related to litigation that he instituted against the City of Hazelwood (“Hazelwood”). Owner specifically is appealing from: (1) the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hazelwood on his claims; (2) the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hazelwood on its counterclaims; (3) the award of attorneys’ fees to Hazel-wood; and (4) the denial of his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on his petition and his motion for a new trial.

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)

248 S.W.3d 18, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 43, 2008 WL 123930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rixleben-v-city-of-hazelwood-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack