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

Case: The City of Kahoka, Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Brett Bertelli, Rex E. Goldsberry and Nancy L. Goldsberry, 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/the-city-of-kahoka-missouri-plaintiffappellant-v-brett-bertelli-rex-e-gol-12865
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12865
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=The+City+of+Kahoka%2C+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Brett+Bertelli%2C+Rex+E.+Goldsberry+and+Nancy+L.+Goldsberry%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:  The City of Kahoka, Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Brett Bertelli, Rex E. Goldsberry and Nancy L. 
Goldsberry, Defendants/Respondents.
Case Number:  72087
Handdown Date:  11/11/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Clark County, Hon. Gary Dial
Counsel for Appellant:  J. Patrick Wheeler
Counsel for Respondent:  H. Scott Summers and Rickey R. Roberts
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
The City of Kahoka (city) appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Clark County denying condemnation of 
properties in the city owned by respondents, Brett Bertelli, Rex E. Goldsberry and Nancy L. Goldsberry. 
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that the city intended to acquire respondents' properties not 
for a public use but in order to exchange these properties for other property which will be put to a public use, therefore, 
the condemnation was not in compliance with Article 1, Section 28 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 88.667 RSMo 
1994.   No error of law appears.  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.
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.