Riggins v. City of Kansas City

351 S.W.3d 742 (2011)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Riggins v. City of Kansas City

Missouri Court of Appeals
351 S.W.3d 742 (2011)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

In 1996 Loretto Redevelopment Corporation (Loretto) (defendant) proposed a redevelopment plan to the city of Kansas City (the city) (defendant) to rehabilitate and redevelop approximately six acres of property located within the city. The plan included building apartments, condominiums, and event spaces and renovating residential property. Loretto requested that the city provide a full abatement of general ad valorem taxes for 10 years and then a 50 percent abatement of general ad valorem taxes for 15 years. Loretto also requested that the city declare the area as blighted so that it could be zoned as an Urban Redevelopment District. The city approved the plan and adopted Ordinance No. 961414 to approve the tax request and Ordinance No. 961358 to approve the rezoning request. The city then entered into a contract with Loretto for the redevelopment. The city was authorized to enter into the contract pursuant to the state of Missouri’s Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law. The contract provided that Loretto would complete the development in four phases and the completion dates for the phases. In 2007 Loretto sought to amend the contract to provide an extension of the schedule and modify the approved uses of the area. The city held a public hearing and then approved an amendment that met Loretto’s requests by enacting Ordinance No. 070790. The city then amended its contract to reflect Loretto’s request. The amendment did not affect the tax-abatement period. In response, Cynthia and Thomas Riggins (plaintiffs) filed an action against the city and Loretto. The Rigginses argued that the city had arbitrarily and unlawfully approved Loretto’s extension request without considering a plethora of public concerns, including harming the city by allowing Loretto’s tax abatements to continue. The trial court determined that the city had not acted arbitrarily, because the Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law allowed for the abatement of taxes and contract law allowed for contract amendments. The Rigginses appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership