The Missouri Gaming Company, d/b/a, Argosy Riverside Casino, Appellant, v. Betty Gregoire, Assessor for Platte County, Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: The Missouri Gaming Company, d/b/a, Argosy Riverside Casino, Appellant, v. Betty Gregoire, Assessor for Platte County, Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 54171 Handdown Date: 03/24/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Byron L. Kinder Counsel for Appellant: Michael Newport Counsel for Respondent: Thomas Rynard Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Hanna, P.J., Smart and Smith, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER The Missouri Gaming Company, d/b/a Argosy Riverside Casino (Argosy) has its place of business in Platte County. The Platte County assessor's office assessed Argosy's personal property, some of which Argosy believed was double assessed. Argosy appealed the assessor's decision to the Platte County Board of Equalization. The appeal was filed well past the time for appeal as set forth in Section 137.385, RSMo 1994. Argosy contends that it has a right of appeal pursuant to Section 138.100.2, RSMo 1994, and faults the assessor's office for its failure to file its appeal on time under Section 137.385, RSMo 1994, because the assessor's office sent it an incorrect notice. The matter was appealed to the State Tax Commission which held that Argosy was not double assessed and that Argosy had not filed its appeal timely. A memorandum explaining our decision has been furnished the parties. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R. Separate Opinion: None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.
Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073
In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.
Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.
State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831