Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Citation
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Parent Document
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-02-27
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6241359/vermett-v-state/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
Full Text
681 charsAppellants argue in their first point that the MCHR's decision and order concluding that they violated § 213.040.1(1) was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Specifically, Appellants assert that there was not competent and substantial evidence for the MCHR to conclude that Appellants violated § 213.040.1(1) by discriminating against Respondents in refusing to rent or refusing to negotiate to rent after Respondents had made a bona fide offer, and that Mrs. Henderson's disability was not a contributing factor in their decision not to rent to Respondents. Rather, Appellants maintain that Unit 1915C was simply unavailable for rent. Analysis