State Ex Rel. Nixon v. PREMIER EXPRESS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. Nixon v. PREMIER EXPRESS, INC.

211 S.W.3d 117, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1838, 2006 WL 3488696

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

DocketED 87497

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.W.3d 117 (State Ex Rel. Nixon v. PREMIER EXPRESS, INC.) 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. Nixon v. PREMIER EXPRESS, INC., 211 S.W.3d 117, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1838, 2006 WL 3488696 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*118 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Premier Express, Inc. and Jerry Lipps appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting the State’s request for injunctive relief and also ordering the defendants to pay a civil penalty for their violations of the Missouri Underground and Petroleum Storage Act, Chapter 319 RSMo, and its implementing regulations, at a gasoline station and truck stop in Jackson, Cape Girardeau County, Missouri.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

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

*118 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Premier Express, Inc. and Jerry Lipps appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting the State’s request for injunctive relief and also ordering the defendants to pay a civil penalty for their violations of the Missouri Underground and Petroleum Storage Act, Chapter 319 RSMo, and its implementing regulations, at a gasoline station and truck stop in Jackson, Cape Girardeau County, Missouri.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 117, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1838, 2006 WL 3488696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-nixon-v-premier-express-inc-moctapp-2006.