Case Name: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Joseph HUGHES, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-12-01
Citations: 985 S.W.2d 824
Docket Number: No. 73877
Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Joseph HUGHES, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before JAMES R. DOWD, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and RICHARD B.TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 985
Pages: 824–824

Head Matter:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Joseph HUGHES, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 73877.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 1, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 18, 1999.
Application for Transfer Denied March 23, 1999.
Henry W. Cummings, St. Charles, for appellant.
Eric K. Banks, Patricia A. Hageman, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before JAMES R. DOWD, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and RICHARD B.TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Hughes appeals the judgment denying his motion to relieve him from the requirement of a prior consent judgment that he rent rooms on a monthly basis only. The prior consent judgment was entered pursuant to the City's petition to enjoin a public nuisance based on repeated arrests at Hughes' hotel for prostitution and drug dealing. In denying Hughes' motion for relief, the trial court incorporated the terms of the consent judgment into a permanent injunction.
Mr. Hughes' brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 and is virtually incomprehensible. To the extent the arguments advanced are understandable, they are without merit. We find no error of law. An extended opinion would be of no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).