Tillis v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tillis v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

351 S.W.3d 234, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1234

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 20, 2011

DocketNo. ED 95928

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.W.3d 234 (Tillis v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department) 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

Tillis v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, 351 S.W.3d 234, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1234 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages arising out of administrative proceedings related to his suspension from employment as a police officer with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Plaintiffs motion to file “Appeals Exhibits” is denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages arising out of administrative proceedings related to his suspension from employment as a police officer with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Plaintiffs motion to file “Appeals Exhibits” is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.3d 234, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillis-v-st-louis-metropolitan-police-department-moctapp-2011.