Legal Opinion
Martee v. City of Kennett
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided February 16, 1990No. 16393PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAUS, Judge.
By his petition for a declaratory judgment the plaintiff, a nonconsenting owner of a peninsula or an enclave in an area surrounded by consenting owners, seeks to establish that Ordinance 2040, annexing the surrounding area to the City of Ken-nett, adopted pursuant to § 71.012, is invalid. Upon the basis of the petition, as explained by a stipulation, the trial court found the plaintiff had no standing to contest the validity of the annexing ordinance. It dismissed the action. The plaintiff, non-consenting owner appeals.
The petition is not well drafted. By reference, it…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Metro Auto Auction v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- State v. City of North Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- State Ex Rel. Mo. State Bd. v. SouthworthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- Lowrey v. HorvathSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985
- State Ex Inf. Ashcroft v. Kansas City Firefighters Local No. 42Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Dodson v. City of WentzvilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
- City of Pacific v. Metro Development Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Dodson v. City of WentzvilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
- City of Lake Winnebago v. GosewischMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Reed v. City of UnionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.