Rogers v. Brockland
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
PRICE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County partially vacating a private road.1 The appellants claim that a number of landowners abutting the private road and the other landowners in the Essex Point and Huntington Farms Subdivisions were indispensable parties who should have been joined to the proceedings. We hold that an action to vacate a private road is strictly controlled by statute and that § 228.450, RSMol986,2 requires notice to all landowners through which the private road sought to be vacated passes. Because this notice was not given to the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Arie v. Intertherm, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983
- McDougall v. CastelliMissouri Court of Appeals · 1973
- Johnston v. BatesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
- Protection Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
- Karches v. Adolph Investment CorporationMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Russo v. BruceMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
- Howell v. RickardMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- L & T Investment Corp. v. State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Rogers v. StanecMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- Rogers v. StanecMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996