{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"double-aa-market-llc","displayName":"Double AA Market, LLC","totalCases":2},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed112466:2024-11-05","opinionId":"d9443dbf-c725-5780-9c99-1b2dad2e8b01","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, MO, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112466","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, sought a conditional use permit for a convenience store, which was denied by the City of St. Louis Board of Adjustment. Double AA then filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the City's alleged practice of \"aldermanic courtesy\" as unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, concluding that a writ of certiorari under Section 89.110 was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an adequate remedy at law was available through certiorari, thus precluding the declaratory judgment action.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214277","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","evidence":["text: llc"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112331:2024-10-29","opinionId":"91d70153-3da7-5c1c-86a7-97873a37fd28","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. Mona Parsley, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, appealed the St. Louis City Board of Adjustment's denial of a conditional use permit for its convenience store. Appellant argued the Board's findings were insufficient, it acted outside its authority, its decision lacked substantial evidence, it constituted an unconstitutional taking, and Appellant was entitled to attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings sufficient, its denial supported by competent evidence, the takings claim unpreserved and meritless, and no basis for attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: property-real-estate"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","evidence":["text: llc"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}],"role":"appellant"}]}