Case ID: sw3d_60/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of MONARCH CHESTERFIELD LEVEE DISTRICT, Respondent, v. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellant.
    No. ED 78838.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Sept. 25, 2001.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 19, 2001.
    Philip E. Morgan, Jr., Paul R. Sterrett, Chesterfield, MO, for Appellant.
    David R. Human, Gray C. Stribling, Jr., Timothy C. Sansone, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
    Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (hereinafter, “MHTC”), the Exceptor in the underlying action, appeals from the judgment entered in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of Monarch Chesterfield Levee District on its reassessment and or assessment of benefits for property owned by MHTC.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find that trial court’s judgment has substantial evidence to support it, it is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Webcon Group, Inc. v. S.M. Properties, L.P., 1 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Mo.App. E.D.1999); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); Rule 73.01(c). 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).