Rucci v. City of Eureka

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rucci v. City of Eureka

45 S.W.3d 483, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 558, 2001 WL 314825

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77496

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 S.W.3d 483 (Rucci v. City of Eureka) 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

Rucci v. City of Eureka, 45 S.W.3d 483, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 558, 2001 WL 314825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sebastian Rucci (Rucci) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of City of Eureka (City), on Rucei’s claims seeking inverse condemnation, temporary taking, 42 U.S.C.1983 damages and violation of the due process clause of the Missouri Constitution.

On appeal, Rucci contends the trial court erred in its judgment because: (1) his property has been taken under Art I, section 26 of the Missouri Constitution in that City has required that the property remain substantially in its natural state, thereby denying him of an economically viable use of the land; (2) City has taken the land by zoning the property in the floodplain by prohibiting all habitable structures; and (3) Rucci was denied just compensation for the temporary taking of the use of his property.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sebastian Rucci (Rucci) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of City of Eureka (City), on Rucei’s claims seeking inverse condemnation, temporary taking, 42 U.S.C.1983 damages and violation of the due process clause of the Missouri Constitution.

On appeal, Rucci contends the trial court erred in its judgment because: (1) his property has been taken under Art I, section 26 of the Missouri Constitution in that City has required that the property remain substantially in its natural state, thereby denying him of an economically viable use of the land; (2) City has taken the land by zoning the property in the floodplain by prohibiting all habitable structures; and (3) Rucci was denied just compensation for the temporary taking of the use of his property.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.W.3d 483, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 558, 2001 WL 314825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucci-v-city-of-eureka-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack