Schnable v. Bond

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schnable v. Bond

66 S.W.3d 41, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1938, 2001 WL 1329604

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 30, 2001·No. No. ED 79312·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Schnable appeals from a trial court judgment affirming the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order) of the Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (the Department) terminating his employment as a police officer within the Department. We review [42] the decision of the Board, not the trial court. Bickl v. Smith, 23 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Board’s Order is not in excess of its jurisdiction, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, nor is it arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Id. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Schnable appeals from a trial court judgment affirming the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order) of the Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (the Department) terminating his employment as a police officer within the Department. We review [42] the decision of the Board, not the trial court. Bickl v. Smith, 23 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Board’s Order is not in excess of its jurisdiction, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, nor is it arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Id. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Schnable v. Bond, 66 S.W.3d 41, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1938, 2001 WL 1329604 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

66 S.W.3d 41 (Schnable v. Bond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related