Snelling v. Board of Education

920 S.W.2d 611, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 1996 WL 133294
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 26, 1996
DocketNo. 68971
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 S.W.2d 611 (Snelling v. Board of Education) 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
Snelling v. Board of Education, 920 S.W.2d 611, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 1996 WL 133294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Lonnie Snelling filed suit against the Board of Education for inverse condemnation. Count I of Snelling’s petition asserts that the Board of Education inversely condemned his land by allowing activities to take place on school property that purportedly resulted in damage to Snelling’s adjacent property. Count II of Snelling’s petition requested injunctive relief.

Snelling appeals from three interlocutory orders made final upon the trial court’s dismissal of the cause without prejudice. The first order, entered on February 24, 1994, sustained the Board of Education’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed two of the defendants from Count II of Snell-ing’s Third Amended Petition. The second order, entered on July 7, 1994, sustained the Board’s motion to dismiss the remaining defendants from Count II of Snelling’s Fourth Amended Petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count II was thereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The third order, entered on July 26, 1995, sustained the Board’s motion for sanctions against Snelling due to his failure to appear at his own properly noticed deposition and ordered Snelling to pay the Board $43.10 for the cost of taking the deposition.

The first order to dismiss dated February 24, 1994 and the second order to dismiss dated July 7, 1994 are sustained by sufficient grounds to support each motion to dismiss. The third order imposing sanctions dated July 26, 1995 is not an abuse of the court’s discretion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

Snelling v. Washington Apartments Ltd. Partnership
963 S.W.2d 366 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
920 S.W.2d 611, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 1996 WL 133294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-board-of-education-moctapp-1996.