Goerlitz v. City of Maryville
2011 Mo. LEXIS 1
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Goerlitz owns a home near the City of Maryville's gun range in Nodaway County; the range is on adjacent property within Polk Township.
- Goerlitz sued in Nodaway County circuit court alleging nuisance, negligence, and seeking damages and an injunction related to the range's operation.
- The action was transferred to Gentry County circuit court after a change of venue; the City moved for summary judgment asserting § 537.294 immunities and sovereign immunity.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Goerlitz could not recover and could not obtain injunctive relief under the amended § 537.294.
- Goerlitz appealed, arguing the current § 537.294 does not bar injunctive relief based on theories other than nuisance or trespass and that there are genuine factual issues about bullets ricocheting onto her property.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that § 537.294 as amended bars nuisance/trespass claims and injunctive relief arising from those theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 537.294 bar nuisance and trespass claims and injunctions? | Goerlitz contends the statute bars only noise-related claims of nuisance, not injunctive relief based on bullets. | City argues the amended § 537.294 broadly bars actions for nuisance or trespass and any injunction related to firearm range noise or emissions. | Yes; § 537.294 bars nuisance, trespass, and related injunctive relief. |
| Is injunctive relief available under theories other than nuisance or trespass? | Goerlitz seeks injunctive relief based on bullets entering airspace, not purely nuisance. | Because Goerlitz pleads only nuisance and trespass theories, injunctive relief is barred by the statute. | No; injunctive relief is barred when only nuisance or trespass theories are pleaded. |
| Are Goerlitz's affidavits and evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on ricocheting bullets? | Affidavits and sworn statements allege bullets ricochet onto her property creating danger. | Hearsay and unsworn statements lack personal knowledge and cannot defeat summary judgment; no admissible evidence of injury. | No; lack of admissible, personal-knowledge evidence prevents a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary-judgment standards apply; criteria for movant to show no genuine issue)
- Hammack v. Coffelt Land Title, Inc., 284 S.W.3d 175 (Mo.App.2009) (affidavits must be on personal knowledge and admissible)
- Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. banc 2009) (primary rule of statutory interpretation: give effect to plain language)
- Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App.2006) (plain-language interpretation guiding statutory analysis)
- Rychnovsky v. Cole, 119 S.W.3d 204 (Mo.App.2003) (trespass defined as unauthorized entry to land; relevant to nuisance/trespass concepts)