Brogoto v. Wiggins, 54762
| Decision Date | 14 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54762,No. 1,54762,1 |
| Citation | 458 S.W.2d 317 |
| Parties | Mike BROGOTO, d/b/a Club 606, Respondent, v. J. Harry WIGGINS, Supervisor of Liquor Control, State of Missouri, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John J. McFadden, Kansas City, for respondent.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen. of Missouri, Jefferson City, Wayne H. Hoecker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for appellant.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County reversing an order of the Supervisor of Liquor Control revoking a liquor license. For relief from the order of revocation licensee filed a petition for review under the Administrative Review Act, Chapter 536, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and Supreme Court Rule 100, V.A.M.R., praying that the supervisor's order be set aside and for naught held and that pending final decision the circuit court stay the order of revocation. The court immediately issued a cease and desist order against the supervisor, who subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal to the circuit court for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative to quash the temporary restraining order. The court quashed the temporary restraining order on the ground that it was issued contrary to the provisions of § 311.700, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. (a section of the Liquor Control Law, Chapter 311, V.A.M.S.) but retained jurisdiction to hear the appeal. After reading and considering the transcript of the proceedings before the supervisor the circuit court entered the order appealed from, finding that the supervisor's order was not supported by competent and credible evidence on the whole record.
We have jurisdiction of this type of case, since the Supervisor of Liquor Control, a state officer, is a party. Article V, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.; State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Moran, Mo.Sup., 439 S.W.2d 503(1).
The first question goes to the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear and entertain a review of the order of the Supervisor of Liquor Control under the Administrative Review Act. The Attorney General, representing the supervisor, contends that in the passage of § 311.700, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., the General Assembly has provided a special separate statutory procedure for review of all final decisions, findings, rules and orders of this particular agency; that the special procedure thus provided is mandatory and jurisdictional; that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required and that failure to so comply results in a failure to vest the circuit and appellate courts with jurisdiction of the subject matter.
This contention must be sustained. Respondent was granted a license to sell intoxicating liquor under the provisions of the Liquor Control Law, Chapter 311, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Section 311.700 of that Law provides that 'Any party to the proceedings who is aggrieved by any final decision, finding, rule or order of the supervisor may file with the supervisor of liquor control his application for a review * * *.' (Our emphasis.) Instead of following this clear and unambiguous statutory direction the licensee filed a petition for review of the order of revocation in the Circuit Court of Jackson County under the general provisions of the Administrative Review Act, Chapter 536, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and under Supreme Court Rule 100 relating to Administrative Review.
On March 9, 1970 this Court, sitting en banc, in State of Missouri ex rel. Wiggins, Supervisor of Liquor Control of State of Missouri v. Hall, Judge, Mo., 452 S.W.2d 106, in an original action in prohibition, held that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order against the Supervisor of Liquor Control to cease and desist from carrying out an order of revocation of a liquor license. The restraining order was issued in a proceeding filed in the circuit court for judicial review of the supervisor's order. That opinion held that the sole remedy available to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. Potts, WD
...procedure is exclusive and must be used, or the court acts without jurisdiction. Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d at 3; Brogoto v. Wiggins, 458 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo.1970); American Hog Co. v. County of Clinton, 495 S.W.2d 123, 127 (Mo.App.1973). That principle, so strict in the statement, ho......
-
State ex rel. Schneider v. Stewart, KCD
... ... Brogoto v. Wiggins, 458 S.W.2d 317, 318(2, 3) (Mo.1970). It does not follow, however, as respondents ... ...
-
Ross v. Conco Quarry, Inc.
... ... Brogoto v. Wiggins, 458 S.W.2d 317, 318--319(2, 3) (Mo.1970); American Hog Co. v. County of Clinton, 495 ... ...
-
A.W.Pherson, Actting Director of Ins. v. Holland-American Ins. Co. Trust
...by the court is mandatory and jurisdictional. Ross v. Conco Quarry, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 568, 572 (Mo. App. 1976); Brogoto v. Wiggins, 458 S.W.2d 317, 318-19 (Mo. 1970). In State ex rel. Melahn v. Romines, the stockholders of three insurance companies, which had been placed in receivership, sou......