More Red-Light Camera Fodder

More Red-Light Camera Fodder

Posted in the Arnold Forum

What Goes Around

Arnold, MO

#1 Nov 26, 2013
Seems the Western District is stepping ahead of the Eastern District and defining things a little more clearly. Surely the City of Arnold will now take heed, probably not, greed rules here, they always need more money to spend and will take it any way they can get it. Red-light camera companies and their cities are foiled again. Bwahahaha :) https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp...
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#2 Nov 26, 2013
I see a ruling against Kansas City. Where's the ruling against Arnold?

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#3 Nov 26, 2013
There isn't one. They just like to use scare tactics and blow things out of proportion.
Ho Hum

Arnold, MO

#4 Nov 27, 2013
You two, like some officials, appear to think Arnold is immune to the laws that apply to everyone else Federal and state courts, make decisions everyday that affect our cities and towns. A city may make a law that enhances state or federal laws on the books. It seems they also like to make ones that conflict with those laws and the Constitution, they don't care They dare people to challenge their illegal laws and/or break them themselves, then when they are just about to lose the case, they choose to settle for an undisclosed amount and hide everything that happened from the people footing the bill. Guess who gets a fat paycheck win, lose or draw? Follow the money.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#5 Nov 27, 2013
Ho Hum wrote:
You two, like some officials, appear to think Arnold is immune to the laws that apply to everyone else Federal and state courts, make decisions everyday that affect our cities and towns. A city may make a law that enhances state or federal laws on the books. It seems they also like to make ones that conflict with those laws and the Constitution, they don't care They dare people to challenge their illegal laws and/or break them themselves, then when they are just about to lose the case, they choose to settle for an undisclosed amount and hide everything that happened from the people footing the bill. Guess who gets a fat paycheck win, lose or draw? Follow the money.
As if we can't guess who you are by your writing style and sayings. Go back into your hole. The final ruling hasn't come out yet.
Ho Hum

Arnold, MO

#6 Nov 27, 2013
Not the brightest bulb on the porch,are you?
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#7 Nov 27, 2013
Still looking for that ruling against Arnold....not finding it. Must be something like those WMD that they never found.
Here it is

Brooklyn, NY

#8 Dec 17, 2013
DSH wrote:
Still looking for that ruling against Arnold....not finding it. Must be something like those WMD that they never found.
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp...

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#9 Dec 17, 2013
Here it is wrote:
The ordinance is just unconstitutional. They redo the ordinance while the rest goes back to trial.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#10 Dec 17, 2013
Conclusion of the ruling:
III. CONCLUSION
We hold the trial court erred in dismissing the claims of both Appellants, and the
respective subclasses they purport to represent, based upon standing, waiver and estoppel,
and the argument that Moore had an adequate remedy at law. As to Count I of the
[* 20 Respondents attempt to claim that ATS was under contract to collect the fine, and, therefore, benefits
conferred by a contract cannot constitute a "benefit" in a claim for unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Estate of
Hunt, 348 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). This argument is unpersuasive because payees never
entered into a contract with ATS. ATS may have been "innocent" by adhering to their duties under its
contract with Arnold, but "[e]ven an innocent party who has been unjustly enriched may be compelled to
surrender the fruits[.]" Smith v. Whitener, 856 S.W.2d 328, 330 (Ark. 1993).]
Petition, we hold that the Ordinance is invalid on the ground that it conflicts with state
law and is therefore void and unenforceable.
With regard to Appellants' claims that the Ordinance is invalid and/or
unconstitutional because City exceeded its police power in enacting the Ordinance and
enacted the Ordinance solely for revenue generation, we reverse the trial court's judgment
dismissing Count I of the Petition. We remand these issues for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, including, inter alia, discovery related to these issues, as
well as for determining whether ATS has been unjustly enriched.
In regards to Appellants' due process claims, we reverse the trial court's judgment
dismissing Counts I, III and IV of the Petition and hold that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional, insomuch as it is criminal in nature and creates a rebuttable
presumption.
Finally, as to Appellants' claims for unjust enrichment, we affirm in part and
reverse and remand in part with instructions. We affirm the trial court's judgment
dismissing Appellants' claims for unjust enrichment as against City under Count II of the
Petition. We reverse and remand the dismissal of Appellants' claims for unjust
enrichment as against ATS under Count VI of the Petition, and instruct the trial court to
permit discovery, inter alia, on the issue as to whether City contracted or surrendered its
governmental powers to ATS.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#11 Dec 17, 2013
Doris Borgelt wrote:
Conclusion of the ruling:
III. CONCLUSION
We hold the trial court erred in dismissing the claims of both Appellants, and the
respective subclasses they purport to represent, based upon standing, waiver and estoppel,
and the argument that Moore had an adequate remedy at law. As to Count I of the
[* 20 Respondents attempt to claim that ATS was under contract to collect the fine, and, therefore, benefits
conferred by a contract cannot constitute a "benefit" in a claim for unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Estate of
Hunt, 348 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). This argument is unpersuasive because payees never
entered into a contract with ATS. ATS may have been "innocent" by adhering to their duties under its
contract with Arnold, but "[e]ven an innocent party who has been unjustly enriched may be compelled to
surrender the fruits[.]" Smith v. Whitener, 856 S.W.2d 328, 330 (Ark. 1993).]
Petition, we hold that the Ordinance is invalid on the ground that it conflicts with state
law and is therefore void and unenforceable.
With regard to Appellants' claims that the Ordinance is invalid and/or
unconstitutional because City exceeded its police power in enacting the Ordinance and
enacted the Ordinance solely for revenue generation, we reverse the trial court's judgment
dismissing Count I of the Petition. We remand these issues for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, including, inter alia, discovery related to these issues, as
well as for determining whether ATS has been unjustly enriched.
In regards to Appellants' due process claims, we reverse the trial court's judgment
dismissing Counts I, III and IV of the Petition and hold that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional, insomuch as it is criminal in nature and creates a rebuttable
presumption.
Finally, as to Appellants' claims for unjust enrichment, we affirm in part and
reverse and remand in part with instructions. We affirm the trial court's judgment
dismissing Appellants' claims for unjust enrichment as against City under Count II of the
Petition. We reverse and remand the dismissal of Appellants' claims for unjust
enrichment as against ATS under Count VI of the Petition, and instruct the trial court to
permit discovery, inter alia, on the issue as to whether City contracted or surrendered its
governmental powers to ATS.
Like I said, hey remand the revenue generating back to the trial court for further discovery measures. Learn to read...and to read the whole thing.
DAVID RUTHERFORD

De Soto, MO

#14 Dec 18, 2013
The entire law allowing RLC's is United States President routinely tramples all over the constitution. And we all know the menatality of the followers. "IF HE CAN DO IT, SO CAN WE! Should we not live by the constitution or not?
Eileen

Arnold, MO

#15 Jan 4, 2014
((((crickets)))) from all the people slamming on their brakes at the RLCs.
drops of jupiter

Tulsa, OK

#16 Jan 4, 2014
RLC (scameras) nothing but a money grab from beginning to end!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mehlville Sat la_verdad_esta_en_mi 1
new police officer? (Sep '13) Sat Wow 18
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Sat Sheepdog 1,468
Water Tower Dental Group Sat No More Wisdom 7
Fox 2 News anna elise parks lookalike Stratford... Jun 22 Talk 2
Spingdale Pool & Bar Jun 22 arnold boy 2
25 people Arrested on Federal Meth Charges (Sep '13) Jun 22 Independent 57
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages