Case Name: John and Mary MOHART, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF KIRKWOOD, Missouri, Mayor Mike Swoboda, Thomas J. Noonan, Arthur J. McDonnell, Michael H.T. Lynch, Joseph E. Godi, Connie Karr and Timothy E. Griffin, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-09-25
Citations: 233 S.W.3d 769
Docket Number: No. ED 89276
Parties: John and Mary MOHART, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF KIRKWOOD, Missouri, Mayor Mike Swoboda, Thomas J. Noonan, Arthur J. McDonnell, Michael H.T. Lynch, Joseph E. Godi, Connie Karr and Timothy E. Griffin, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 233
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
John and Mary MOHART, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF KIRKWOOD, Missouri, Mayor Mike Swoboda, Thomas J. Noonan, Arthur J. McDonnell, Michael H.T. Lynch, Joseph E. Godi, Connie Karr and Timothy E. Griffin, Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 89276.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Sept. 25, 2007.
Eric S. Schmitt, Lathrop & Gage, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
John M. Hessel, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John and Mary Mohart ("the Moharts") appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Kirkwood, Missouri; Mayor Mike Swoboda; Thomas J. Noonan; Arthur J. McDonnell; Michael H.T. Lynch; Joseph E. Godi; Connie Karr; and Timothy E. Griffin (collectively referred to herein as "Kirkwood"). The Moharts argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Kirkwood be cause the denial of their application for rezoning was arbitrary and capricious. The Moharts also claim the court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims for damages because the denial of the application for rezoning gives rise to such claims.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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 of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).