Section 213
- Citation
- Section 213
- Parent Document
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-02-27
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6241359/vermett-v-state/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
Full Text
631 charsIn response to these allegations, Appellants suggested that they refused to rent to Respondents for the non-discriminatory reason that Unit 1915C was unavailable at the time Respondents applied and would still be unavailable at their requested move-in dates.5 Respondents, in turn, claimed that this reason was pretextual because Unit 1915C was the subject of the negotiations throughout the application process, Respondents proposed building a ramp leading to the security door of Building 1915 during their visits on February 10, 2010 and February 16, 2010, and Respondents had made it clear that their move-in date was flexible.