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

Case: State of Missouri, ex rel., Janet M. Kreutz, Relator-Respondent, v. Eileen Davis Young, et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Theodore Hoskins, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: other
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-janet-m-kreutz-relator-respondent-v-eileen-davis-13578
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13578
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=State+of+Missouri%2C+ex+rel.%2C+Janet+M.+Kreutz%2C+Relator-Respondent%2C+v.+Eileen+Davis+Young%2C+et+al.%2C+Respondents-Appellants%2C+and+Theodore+Hoskins%2C+et+al.%2C+Respondents-Appellants.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=4&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: text; score: 4; evidence: text: state of missouri)

---
## 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:  State of Missouri, ex rel., Janet M. Kreutz, Relator-Respondent, v. Eileen Davis Young, et al., 
Respondents-Appellants, and Theodore Hoskins, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Case Number:  74008
Handdown Date:  06/23/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Michael Godfrey
Counsel for Appellant:  Elbert A. Walton, Jr.
Counsel for Respondent:  Rick Barry
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Karohl, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
O R D E R
Officials of the City of Berkeley   appeal judgment in mandamus that the city hold a recall election for Mayor 
Theodore Hoskins on August 4, 1998.  
The judgment is supported by substantial evidence.  No error of law appears.  An extended opinion would have 
no precedential value.  A memorandum opinion has been provided to the parties for their information only.  We affirm. 
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.