Breaking News
Sections from the court ruling from Judge Barbara Wallace, August 5, 2010.
Pursuant to section 260.247.2 and .3, prior to expiration of the two-year notice period, the County must use existing haulers and pay them what they would have made had they provided the service directly. It is this legal obligation on the part of the County that gives rise to the implied in law contract.
County contends Plaintiffs' (trash haulers) claim fails as a matter of law becauseit received no benefit from (the haulers) Plaintiffs; however, the Court finds County was in fact benefited in that it fully implementedit s trash collection program without having to pay the existing haulers.
=============================
Haulers Vs. St. Louis County
The Lawyer for three trash haulers asked the court for a Summary Judgment.
On August 05,2010, the Haulers WON on two counts,but still pending before the judge.
A Trial Date is set for January 31, 2011 in St. Louis County Circuit Court.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The hauleres deserve to be compensated. Their business was stolen from them by the County, and the County, should have to pay the damages.
ReplyDeleteSt. Louis County knew that the Missouri Statute existed regarding the 2 year notice to haulers. They were informed repeatedly about this state law. St. Louis County against all conventional wisdom, decided they did not have to obey State law and blatetly ignored it openly, saying all along they were not subject to the 2 year notice statute.
ReplyDeleteWell, they are subject too it, and now must pay possibley millions of dollars in penalties.
Thank Charlie Dooley for the fine mess you put tax payer in.
Remember any money that has to be paid to the haulers will come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Charlie Dooley is not looking out for the taxpayers.
ReplyDelete