State Ex Rel. MSJB Development Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Westphalia

Missouri Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. MSJB Development Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Westphalia

179 S.W.3d 472, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1900, 2005 WL 3466536

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86404

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 472 (State Ex Rel. MSJB Development Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Westphalia) 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

State Ex Rel. MSJB Development Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Westphalia, 179 S.W.3d 472, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1900, 2005 WL 3466536 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

MSJB Development Co., LLC (MSJB) appeals the trial court’s amended judgment denying MSJB’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and affirming the decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Westphalia (Board) in MSJB’s claim for relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The Board’s award is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth our reasons for the order affirming the Board’s award 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.

MSJB Development Co., LLC (MSJB) appeals the trial court’s amended judgment denying MSJB’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and affirming the decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Westphalia (Board) in MSJB’s claim for relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The Board’s award is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth our reasons for the order affirming the Board’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 472, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1900, 2005 WL 3466536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-msjb-development-co-v-board-of-adjustment-of-westphalia-moctapp-2005.