From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petersen v. Goebel

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Mar 16, 2021
627 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. ED 107939

03-16-2021

Joan C. PETERSEN, Appellant, v. Perry GOEBEL, et al., Respondents.

David L. Baylard, 30 South McKinley St., Union, MO 63084, For Appellant. Justin E. Head, 315 East Main, Union, MO 63084, For Respondents Goebel. Erik C. Zorumski, Ted D. Disabato, 4509 Lemay Ferry Rd., St. Louis, MO 63129, For Respondents Hermit Hollow.


David L. Baylard, 30 South McKinley St., Union, MO 63084, For Appellant.

Justin E. Head, 315 East Main, Union, MO 63084, For Respondents Goebel.

Erik C. Zorumski, Ted D. Disabato, 4509 Lemay Ferry Rd., St. Louis, MO 63129, For Respondents Hermit Hollow.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Kelly C. Broniec, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joan Peterson ("Appellant") appeals the judgment denying her request to enjoin construction of a private driveway through the Hermit Hollow subdivision recreation area. Appellant did not meet her burden of proving entitlement to a permanent injunction. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Petersen v. Goebel

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Mar 16, 2021
627 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

Petersen v. Goebel

Case Details

Full title:Joan C. PETERSEN, Appellant, v. Perry GOEBEL, et al., Respondents.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Date published: Mar 16, 2021

Citations

627 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)