Schnable v. Bond

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schnable v. Bond

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 2001

DocketNo. ED 79312

StatusPublished

This text of 66 S.W.3d 41 (Schnable v. Bond) 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

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

Pincite

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]*42the 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]*42the 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.W.3d 41, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1938, 2001 WL 1329604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnable-v-bond-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack