# Jackson v. Board of Police Commissioners

> Missouri Court of Appeals · March 18, 2008 · 253 S.W.3d 85

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5108378

## Case

- **Full name:** Herman JACKSON v. The BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chris Goodson, Joann Freeman-Morrow, Michael J. Quinn, Julius Hunter, Reginald P. Bodeux, Francis Slay and Paul M. Nocchiero
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 18, 2008
- **Citations:** 253 S.W.3d 85; 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 365
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Hoff, III, Sullivan
- **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/5108378

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Herman Jackson (hereinafter, “Jackson”) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment affirming the decision of the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (hereinafter, “the Board”) terminating his employment. Jackson raises three points on appeal. First, Jackson claims he was entitled to a full hearing before the Board rather than before a hearing officer. Second, Jackson challenges the Board’s decision, alleging it is not supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Third, Jackson argues the circuit court erred in dismissing his ancillary claims contained in his petition for judicial review pursuant to Section 536.110 RSMo (2000).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. We find no error occurred. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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 the order affirming the Commission’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5108378. Public record. Not legal advice.