Larry E. Cross, Plaintiff/Appellant v. The City of Springfield, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: Larry E. Cross, Plaintiff/Appellant v. The City of Springfield, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 26392 Handdown Date: 03/28/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. J. Miles Sweeney Counsel for Appellant: Rick J. Muenks Counsel for Respondent: Douglas Harpool and Tamara F. De Wild Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Kenneth W. Shrum, Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Parrish, P.J. and Barney, J. - Concur. Opinion: This suit by Larry E. Cross against the City of Springfield, Missouri ("City"), seeks damages based on a theory of inverse condemnation. He claims City took his real estate for public use without fairly compensating him. Plaintiff alleges this taking occurred when a public drainage system failed to carry away surface water run-off that collected therein as a result of heavy rainfall; and, when the overflow escaped the confines of the drainage easement, the water damaged Plaintiff's residential property. City's motion for summary judgment was sustained. This appeal by Plaintiff followed. This is a companion case to Bettinger v. City of Springfield, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo.App. 2005), No. 26391, decided and handed down by this court on March, 2005. The issues here are identical to those in Bettinger. Moreover, except for the parties plaintiff, the real estate involved, and the damage claimed, the relevant facts here are identical to those in Bettinger. Finally, the trial court error alleged here and the arguments made in support of those claims are identical to those in Bettinger. As a consequence, we opt to affirm the summary judgment entered in this cause for the reasons set

forth in Bettinger. See, e.g., State ex rel. Dowdy v. Neill, 90 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Mo.banc 2002). The judgment is affirmed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.