St. Louis County v. Darrow

Missouri Court of Appeals

St. Louis County v. Darrow

347 S.W.3d 165, 2011 WL 3808234

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 20, 2011

DocketED 95832

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.W.3d 165 (St. Louis County v. Darrow) 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. Louis County v. Darrow, 347 S.W.3d 165, 2011 WL 3808234 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*166 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brett Darrow (Darrow) appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding, in violation of St. Louis County Revised Ordinance Nos. 1204.020. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*166 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brett Darrow (Darrow) appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding, in violation of St. Louis County Revised Ordinance Nos. 1204.020. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 165, 2011 WL 3808234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-county-v-darrow-moctapp-2011.