distinguishable, as there is no indication that the production and processing of sucralose was intended to benefit the residents of Moberly. Cf. Parish v. Novus Equities Co., 231 S.W.3d 236, 242 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (“An act of a municipality performed for the special benefit or profit of the municipal corporation, in that it provides local necessities and conveniences only to its own citizens, is classified as a proprietary function.”). While a sewer system is constructed for the specific benefit of the municipality, the only benefit that Moberly’s residents might have received from the sucralose facility was some degree of economic stimulation, which would not have been confined to their community. As the Missouri Supreme Court explained in Jardon, “[T]he esta 118 N.W.2d 223, 227 (1962) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Morgan Keegan relies on
holding a jury question existed as to whether a patient consented to an operation and whether the operation received was substantially similar to the operation to which the patient consented so as to be within the scope of the consent holding that a successor corporation had a duty to arbitrate the extent of its obligations under its predecessors cba because there was substantial continuity in the business enterprise holding that the operation of a competitive business enterprise which was expected to provide a financial return that would be of benefit to the municipal corporation was proprietary holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes