Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Arnie C. Dienhoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Community Fire Protection District of the County of St. Louis, Kathleen Burkett, Lillian Kent, and William Klinghammer, Defendants-Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arnie-c-dienhoff-plaintiff-appellant-v-community-fire-protection-district-17349
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17349
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Arnie+C.+Dienhoff%2C+Plaintiff-Appellant%2C+v.+Community+Fire+Protection+District+of+the+County+of+St.+Louis%2C+Kathleen+Burkett%2C+Lillian+Kent%2C+and+William+Klinghammer%2C+Defendants-Respondents.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: criminal-law)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Arnie C. Dienhoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Community Fire Protection District of the County of St. 
Louis, Kathleen Burkett, Lillian Kent, and William Klinghammer, Defendants-Respondents.
Case Number:  No. 71669
Handdown Date:  08/05/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert L. Campbell
Counsel for Appellant:  Kenneth H. Gilbert
Counsel for Respondent:  Joseph A. Lott
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Reinhard, P.J., Karohl and Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur.
Opinion:
DIVISION SIX
O R D E R
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing his petition for injunctive and declaratory relief.   We affirm.   The 
judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of 
law   appears.   An   extended   opinion   would   have   no   precedential   value.     The   parties   have   been   furnished   with   a 
memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 
84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.