Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Jefferson Associates Limited Partnership, Appellant, v. State Tax Commission, et al., Respondents.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Affirmed

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar corporate law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

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: Jefferson Associates Limited Partnership, Appellant, v. State Tax Commission, et al., Respondents. Case Number: 72279 Handdown Date: 04/14/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford Counsel for Appellant: Timothy Tryniecki and Jeffery McPherson Counsel for Respondent: John A. Ross, Dennis Affolter and Edward Corrigan Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County affirming the State Tax Commission's classification of its apartment complex under section 137.016(3) RSMo 1994 as commercial property for real estate tax purposes for the 1994 tax year. The order of the administrative agency is supported by competent and substantial evidence. No error of law appears. 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 facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

In re: Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101182

dismissed

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.

Read The Corporate Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam2,484 words
Read opinion

In re: Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 13, 2026#SC101157

modified

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.

Read The Family Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam3,367 words
Read opinion
Read The Corporate Law GuideGuideRead opinion