Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Citation
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Parent Document
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1986-06-10
Other Sections in This Document (52)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
- Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 714 S.W.2d 679 (1986)
Full Text
1,557 charsRespondents contend the zoning ordinance, § 39.446 I (1981), was irrelevant to any issue in the case and that plaintiffs were seeking to use the ordinance in a collateral attack on the decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. They say this constitutes an attempt to reargue a point already determined, the entitlement of Nichols to be granted the special use permit. Respondents say that having lost the decision before the Board of Zoning Adjustment, where Davis and Correll were afforded the opportunity to be heard and having failed in a judicial challenge to the grant of the permit, they are not entitled in this action to question the decision authorizing the permit under the zoning ordinance. Appellants deny any offer to contest the decision to issue the permit. For purposes of the nuisance claims, appellants admit that Nichols and Harwood had lawful authority to build the parking lot and to maintain it pursuant to the permit. The ordinance was offered, according to appellants, to prove the limit of the permitted area within a distance of 500 feet from the business zoned district. If, as appellants say their proof would show, the property actually used for the parking lot as constructed exceeds the boundary as limited by the ordinance, the evidence would constitute proof countering the defense of the permit itself and would also be some evidence bearing on the reasonableness of property use. These arguments lead to a consideration of what constitutes a nuisance and how that concept interrelates with controlled land use by zoning.