Gore v. Wochner, 38754
| Decision Date | 04 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38754,38754 |
| Citation | 558 S.W.2d 333 |
| Parties | Minnie E. T. GORE and Jennye Robinson, Appellants, v. R. Dean WOCHNER, M.D., Director, Department of Health and Hospitals for the City of St. Louis, et al., Defendants. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John Belles, St. Louis, for appellants.
John J. Fitzgibbon, St. Louis, for defendants.
Appeal by two civil service employees from the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for review, by which they challenged their dismissal as municipal employees.
The St. Louis Municipal School of Nursing discharged plaintiff-employees. They appealed to the City's Civil Service Commission which held extensive hearings and affirmed the discharges on October 14, 1975. Transcript of the commission hearings and order was furnished promptly to counsel who then represented plaintiffs.
November 12, 1975 plaintiffs petitioned the circuit court for review of the order of dismissal. The circuit court dismissed plaintiffs' petition for review on the ground of late filing of the transcript and they have appealed.
On appeal to this court plaintiffs raise an extraneous point: That the trial court erred in denying their motion for intervention "which raised new matters . . . not shown on the record." This motion was filed in the circuit court on April 1, 1976 by attorney Bruce Nangle, until then a stranger to the record, alleging he had an employment contract with plaintiffs relating to alleged misconduct by individual defendants during the time plaintiffs' appeal was pending before the Civil Service Commission. If this vague motion was made on behalf of plaintiffs there was no need for intervention since they were already before the court as plaintiffs. If the motion was made on behalf of Mr. Nangle individually, there is strong doubt as to his standing. We need not resolve this.
As a general rule judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and "deals only with questions of law that appear on the face of the record," thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. State ex rel. Weinhardt v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc., 395 S.W.2d 316(6-9) (Mo.App.1965).
To have the circuit court review the Nangle motion, plaintiffs rely on a statutory exception to the face-of-the-record rule. They cite § 536.140(4), RSMo. 1969, declaring (with our emphasis): "The Court may in any case hear and consider evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or of unfairness by the agency, not shown in the record." The word "may" indicates hearing further evidence in the circuit court is discretionary, and that evidence is limited to "irregularities in procedure." It does not warrant a hearing de novo. State v. Randall, 275 S.W.2d 758(3, 4) (Mo.App.1955). We find no error in the circuit court's denial of plaintiffs' point on intervention.
We move to plaintiffs' principal point: That the circuit court erroneously denied their petition for review because of the untimeliness of filing the transcript of the administrative proceedings.
By Section 536.130, RSMo. 1969, plaintiffs' right to judicial review required them to file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consumer Contact Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue
...v. Steger, 509 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.banc 1974); State ex rel. Favazza v. Ketchum, 367 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Mo.1963); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App.1977); § 536.140.2, RSMo 1978; Rule It is clear that the text of the ordinance is not in the evidence presented to the Department of Rev......
-
Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc. v. Hazardous Waste Management Com'n
...further evidence; it is permissive only. Eddington v. St. Francois Cty R-III Bd. of Ed., 564 S.W.2d 283 (Mo.App.1978); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App.1977). Petitioner had its opportunity to present its evidence at the Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence asse......
-
Lorenz v. City of Florissant, Mo., s. 52584
...law that appear on the face of the record, thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App.1977). The nature of the hearing before the trial court is one of review, not de novo. State ex rel. Weinhardt v. Ladue Profes......
-
State ex rel. Keeven v. City of Hazelwood, 39991
...that appear on the face of the record,' thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency." Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App.1977). Hazelwood could not ask the courts to uphold its action for reasons not stated in its decision. The sole reason given for......