# State ex rel. Jost v. City of Des Peres Board of Adjustment

> Missouri Court of Appeals · May 19, 1998 · 978 S.W.2d 350

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5095774

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob JOST, Doine L. Jost and Propagators Jost, Ltd., Relators/Respondents v. CITY OF DES PERES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, John R. Barsanti, Nancy Lee Barsanti, Thomas R. Weber, Suzanne Weber, John D. Clark and Susan Clark, Intervenors/Appellants
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 19, 1998
- **Citations:** 978 S.W.2d 350; 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 931; 1998 WL 248226
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Dowd, Hoff, Simon
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5095774

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Barsanti, et al. (Barsanti), appeals from judgment entered by the trial court reversing a decision of the Board of Adjustment (Board) of the City of Des Peres (City) in favor of State of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob Jost, et al. Barsanti was not a party to the action from which he appeals. Nevertheless, on appeal, Barsanti contends the court erred *351 in: (1) denying the post-judgment motion to intervene after the court reversed the decision of the Board; and (2) reversing the Board’s affirmation of City’s Notice to Abate the expansion of the non-conforming use. Barsanti’s third point sets forth the duties of this court in regard to this review.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5095774. Public record. Not legal advice.