Hen House Interstate, Inc. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMM., No. WD 31113.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | WASSERSTROM, C. J., Presiding, and KENNEDY and PRITCHARD, JJ |
| Citation | 604 S.W.2d 821 |
| Parties | HEN HOUSE INTERSTATE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 02 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 31113. |
604 S.W.2d 821
HEN HOUSE INTERSTATE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent.
No. WD 31113.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
September 2, 1980.
Robert L. Hyder, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bruce A. Ring, State Highway Commission, Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.
Before WASSERSTROM, C. J., Presiding, and KENNEDY and PRITCHARD, JJ.
KENNEDY, Judge.
Defendant State Highway Commission issued to plaintiff Hen House Interstate, Inc., its "Notice to Remove Outdoor Advertising", afterwards denying a request for an administrative hearing on the ground that the request was untimely filed. Upon this judicial review action, the circuit court affirmed the order of the Highway Commission. From the circuit court judgment an appeal has been taken to this court. We reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
Hen House Interstate, Inc.-possibly a restaurant-had a large billboard near Highway I-44 in Crawford County. The State Highway Commission sent to the owner a "Notice to Remove Outdoor Advertising". The notice, which was received by Interstate on October 12, 1976, said the sign was "unlawful" because "being maintained without a permit, as required by § 226.550, RSMo", and because "erected on or after March 30, 1972, contrary to law". The notice went ahead to say the owner would have 30 days in which "to correct the unlawful condition specified, or to request a hearing before the Commission." If the condition was not corrected within that time, the notice indicated, and if no request for a hearing was made, the sign would be removed at the owner's expense.
In sending the notice, the Commission purported to be acting under § 226.500-.600, RSMo 1978, a law of almost impenetrable obfuscation for the regulation of billboard advertising along certain highways. Sec. 226.580 thereof makes unlawful certain outdoor advertising within 660 feet of the right of way of interstate or primary highways, Highway I-44 being one of the former. Of the several proscribed categories are "signs erected after March 30, 1972, contrary to the provisions of §§ 226.500 to 226.600" and "signs for which a permit is not obtained as prescribed in §§ 226.500 to 226.600".
After the notice was received by Hen House on October 12, 1976, Hen House promptly filed with the Commission an "Application for Permit to Erect and Maintain Outdoor Advertising", along with the required fee of $10. The application was on a printed official form of the Highway Commission. The reader will notice that the permit, if granted, would correct the first of the unlawful conditions stated in the notice, that the sign was "being maintained without a permit".
The billboard law sets up a system of "one-time permanent permits" for billboards, § 226.550. Permits are to be issued for billboards "lawfully existing" on March 29, 1972-except certain ones-and also for those erected after March 30, 1972, "which are in conformity with §§ 226.500 to 226.600."
The Commission returned to Hen House its application for a permit and its check for $10. An accompanying letter from the district engineer told Interstate "(t)he above are being returned because your sign location is within 500 ft. of another sign.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaslight Real Estate Corp. v. LABOR & INDUS., ETC., No. WD 31077.
...state regarding the raising and preservation of constitutional issues, not the least of which is that they must be raised at the first 604 S.W.2d 821 available opportunity. City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 1227, 219 S.W.2d 372, 376 (banc 1949); and Woodling v. Westport Hotel O......
-
State ex rel. Nat. Advertising Co. v. State Highway Commission, No. WD
...had administrative review. Whatever deficiency the Notice posed was waived. See Hen House Interstate, Inc. v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980). The decision by the Commission to remove sign 337 as in violation of the space provision of § 226.540(3)(a)a rests on substan......
-
Independent Stave Co., Inc. v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, No. WD
...the alleged unlawfulness. The notice here is similar to the supplemental notice in Hen House Interstate v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980), which advised Hen House that " 'your sign location is within 500 feet of another sign' " and it was held that it was contrary to......
-
Osage Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n, No. WD34925
...and March 30, 1972. The only Missouri case cited in support of the argument is Hen House Interstate, Inc. v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980). The history of the attempts by the Missouri legislature to control billboards in compliance with the Highway Beautification Ac......
-
Gaslight Real Estate Corp. v. LABOR & INDUS., ETC., No. WD 31077.
...state regarding the raising and preservation of constitutional issues, not the least of which is that they must be raised at the first 604 S.W.2d 821 available opportunity. City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 1227, 219 S.W.2d 372, 376 (banc 1949); and Woodling v. Westport Hotel O......
-
State ex rel. Nat. Advertising Co. v. State Highway Commission, No. WD
...had administrative review. Whatever deficiency the Notice posed was waived. See Hen House Interstate, Inc. v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980). The decision by the Commission to remove sign 337 as in violation of the space provision of § 226.540(3)(a)a rests on substan......
-
Independent Stave Co., Inc. v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, No. WD
...the alleged unlawfulness. The notice here is similar to the supplemental notice in Hen House Interstate v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980), which advised Hen House that " 'your sign location is within 500 feet of another sign' " and it was held that it was contrary to......
-
Osage Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n, No. WD34925
...and March 30, 1972. The only Missouri case cited in support of the argument is Hen House Interstate, Inc. v. State Highway Commission, 604 S.W.2d 821 (Mo.App.1980). The history of the attempts by the Missouri legislature to control billboards in compliance with the Highway Beautification Ac......