St. Charles County v. GAINES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Missouri Court of Appeals

St. Charles County v. GAINES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

311 S.W.3d 389, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 743, 2010 WL 2172619

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 2010

DocketED 93535

StatusPublished

This text of 311 S.W.3d 389 (St. Charles County v. GAINES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP) 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

St. Charles County v. GAINES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 311 S.W.3d 389, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 743, 2010 WL 2172619 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Charles County (“St. Charles”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Gaines Family Limited Partnership, Gaines Construction, Inc., and William R. Gaines, Jr.’s (collectively, “Gaines”) motion for summary judgment. St. Charles asserts that the trial court erred in entering its judgment because: (1) neither Gaines’ summary judgment motion nor the trial court’s judgment disposed of St. Charles’ claim that Gaines violated the Unified Development Ordinance; (2) nei *390 ther Gaines’ summary judgment motion nor the trial court’s judgment disposed of St. Charles’ affirmative defenses to Gaines’ counterclaim; (3) Gaines’ statement of un-controverted facts included facts not germane to Gaines’ and St. Charles’ claims and defenses; and (4) the trial court’s judgment improperly found that St. Charles unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making authority to a third party.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err in granting Gaines’ motion for summary judgment. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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.

St. Charles County (“St. Charles”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Gaines Family Limited Partnership, Gaines Construction, Inc., and William R. Gaines, Jr.’s (collectively, “Gaines”) motion for summary judgment. St. Charles asserts that the trial court erred in entering its judgment because: (1) neither Gaines’ summary judgment motion nor the trial court’s judgment disposed of St. Charles’ claim that Gaines violated the Unified Development Ordinance; (2) nei *390 ther Gaines’ summary judgment motion nor the trial court’s judgment disposed of St. Charles’ affirmative defenses to Gaines’ counterclaim; (3) Gaines’ statement of un-controverted facts included facts not germane to Gaines’ and St. Charles’ claims and defenses; and (4) the trial court’s judgment improperly found that St. Charles unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making authority to a third party.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err in granting Gaines’ motion for summary judgment. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 S.W.3d 389, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 743, 2010 WL 2172619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-charles-county-v-gaines-family-limited-partnership-moctapp-2010.