Combined Communications Corporation, by and through its Gannett Outdoor Company of St. Louis Division, and Outdoor Systems, Inc., Appellants, v. City of Pagedale, Respondents.
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
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: Combined Communications Corporation, by and through its Gannett Outdoor Company of St. Louis Division, and Outdoor Systems, Inc., Appellants, v. City of Pagedale, Respondents. Case Number: 73571 Handdown Date: 10/27/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney Counsel for Appellant: Robert C. Jones Counsel for Respondent: Thomas W. Wehrle and Frank Susman Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Hoff, P.J., Gaertner and Rhodes Russell, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Gannett Outdoor Company and Outdoor Systems, Inc., appeal the trial court's judgment entered in favor of City of Pagedale on their petition seeking to hold a billboard ordinance unconstitutional, and enjoin the city from enforcing a $5,000 annual occupation license fee. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm 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.
Related Opinions
In re: Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101182
The Missouri Supreme Court found that attorney Brian Todd Goldstein violated professional conduct rules by mishandling client funds and engaging in dishonest conduct, including taking clients without informing his law firm, misrepresenting trust account practices, and misappropriating over $585,000 from more than 100 clients. The Court ordered Goldstein disbarred based on violations of rules governing safekeeping of property and dishonest conduct.
In re: Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 13, 2026#SC101157
Attorney Arensberg was disciplined for knowingly drafting fraudulent loan documents to diminish a client's son's marital estate during divorce proceedings. Rather than the agreed-upon reprimand, the court imposed an indefinite suspension with a six-month waiting period for reinstatement, stayed pending successful completion of one-year probation.
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services vs. Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#WD87223
Motors Insurance Corporation vs. Autobot Towing, LLC(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJuly 8, 2025#WD87590
JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 28, 2025#SD38656