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

Case: James P. Morrissey, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Florissant Valley Fire Protection District of St. Louis County, et al., 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/james-p-morrissey-plaintiffappellant-v-florissant-valley-fire-protection-12804
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12804
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=James+P.+Morrissey%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Florissant+Valley+Fire+Protection+District+of+St.+Louis+County%2C+et+al.%2C+Defendants%2FRespondents.&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:  James P. Morrissey, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Florissant Valley Fire Protection District of St. Louis 
County, et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Case Number:  71940
Handdown Date:  12/30/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Daniel J. O'Toole
Counsel for Appellant:  Stephen J. Nangle
Counsel for Respondent:  John H. Goffstein & Brent J. Jaimes
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Plaintiff, James P. Morrissey, appeals the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants, Florissant Valley 
Fire Protection District of St. Louis County (FVFPD), Jack C. Dunn, Al A. Hauswirth, and Shannon P. Duffy, individually 
and as members of FVFPD's board of directors and pension board,  in an action brought by plaintiff for declaratory 
judgment (Count I) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count II).
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).   An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 
principles of law would have no precedential value.  A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been 
provided explaining the reasons for our holdings.
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.