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
840 charsDuring the proceedings before the MCHR, Respondents and Appellants presented two different sets of facts: Respondents testified that, during their visit to Villa Roma on February 10, 2010, Ms. Vermett showed both Respondents inside the security door of Building 1915 and indicated that Unit 1915C would be the apartment they would rent if Respondents chose to live at Villa Roma; Appellants testified that Ms. Vermett did not show Respondents inside the security door of Building 1915, that Ms. Vermett did not discuss with Respondents the possibility of building a ramp to any apartment until after Respondents had filled out their rental application on February 16, 2010, and that Ms. Vermett would not have indicated which unit Respondents would potentially receive, as it was against Villa Roma's policies regarding prospective renters.