Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Eolia
Missouri Court of Appeals
895 S.W.2d 632 (1995)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Christian Disposal, Inc. (CDI) (plaintiff) provided trash-collection services for the Village of Eolia (defendant). Missouri law required a municipality getting into the public trash-collection business to give two years’ notice to the municipality’s current private trash collector. The purpose of this law was to afford the private trash collector the ability to make the necessary adjustments to its business. Pursuant to this statute, on March 9, 1993, the village gave notice to CDI that it would be terminating its service contract in two years. In this letter, the village also requested CDI’s trash-collection contracts with village residents and businesses pursuant to another Missouri law that stated that private trash collectors “shall make available” such information within 30 days of a written request to do so. CDI failed to provide the requested information to the village within 30 days. In response, the village determined that this failure meant that CDI was estopped from claiming the benefits of the two-year notice. Accordingly, the village notified CDI that it would be terminating their contract as of August 1, 1993. CDI sued the village for a declaratory ruling that the village violated the two-year-notice law. The trial court agreed with the village, finding that CDI was estopped from claiming the benefits of the two-year notice. CDI appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.