The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Missouri Cases
This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.
Party ID
the-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district
Cases Shown
6
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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 Practice Pages
Practical guidance connected to this party profile
These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.
Tabernacle Community Development Corporation purchased a property at a sheriff's sale under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law (MLRL). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) had previously recorded a lien on the property for unpaid sewer bills, pursuant to one of its ordinances. Tabernacle filed a quiet title action to extinguish the MSD lien, arguing the MLRL supersedes the MSD ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tabernacle, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the MLRL statute prevails over the MSD ordinance and extinguishes the lien.
WMAC 2013, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment that quieted title to real property in its favor but subject to a sewer lien for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD). While the appeal was pending, MSD filed a motion to dismiss, stating the lien had been fully satisfied. The appellate court granted the motion, dismissing the appeal as moot because the satisfaction of the lien extinguished the controversy and made it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief. The court also found that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied.