Laclede County, MO v. Douglass, Commissioner
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Citation | 43 S.W.3d 826 |
Parties | (Mo.banc 2001) Laclede County, Missouri, Appellant v. Lowell Douglass, Commissioner, Eastern District, and Rick Wolken, Commissioner, Western District, Respondents. SC83050 0 |
Decision Date | 15 May 2001 |
v.
Lowell Douglass, Commissioner, Eastern District, and Rick Wolken, Commissioner, Western District, Respondents.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Laclede County, Hon. John R. O'Malley
Counsel for Appellant: Richard L. Schnake and Jon A. Morris
Counsel for Respondent: Darrell Deputy, Jr.
Opinion Summary: The legislature amended section 50.333 to permit the county to increase the salaries of commissioners whose terms had been changed from two to four years by the legislature. Laclede County challenged the statute's constitutionality on the grounds that article VII, section 13 prohibits increases in compensation of officeholders during their terms. The court upheld the statute.
Court en banc holds: Section 50.133.12 is invalid because it violates article VII, section 13. Although the statute expressly conjoined the salary increase to the term extension, that extension does not constitute an additional duty so as to be exempt from the constitutional prohibition. Term length is not a duty. Even if it were, the new term was established before the election of the subject commissioners, so no new duty was imposed to justify a midterm increase.
All concur.
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Judge
Laclede County appeals from a judgment of the circuit court upholding the constitutionality of section 50.333.13, RSMo Supp. 1999, which purports to authorize a midterm increase in salaries of county commissioners, including respondents, who were elected to four-year terms in 1996. Appellant contends that section 50.333.13 violates the Missouri Constitution article VII, section 13, which prohibits increases in the compensation of officeholders during the term of office. Because the validity of a statute is challenged, this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 3. The judgment is reversed.
The facts are not in dispute. Until 1995, the term of office for associate county commissioners, under section 49.020, RSMo 1994, was two years. But in 1995 the legislature amended section 49.020 by extending the term of office for associate county commissioners elected in 1996, and in subsequent years, to four years. Thereafter, in 1996, respondents Lowell Douglas and Rick Wolken were elected associate county commissioners for Laclede County. Both respondents had already held that office for two-year terms, having first been elected in 1994, but the 1996 election resulted in a new four-year term.
Since 1987, the salaries of Laclede County officeholders had been set, according to statutory guidelines, by a county salary commission as required under section 50.333, RSMo Cum Supp. 1987. In 1997, after respondents commenced their four-year terms, the legislature amended section 50.333 by adding a new subsection 13, which states in pertinent part:
At the salary commission meeting in 1997 which establishes the salaries for those officers to be elected at the general election in 1998, the salary commission of each noncharter county...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pauli v. Spicer, ED 101231.
...judgment action under the standard established in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Laclede County v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). “[T]he trial court's decision should be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against......
-
Pauli v. Spicer, ED 101231.
...judgment action under the standard established in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Laclede County v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). “[T]he trial court's decision should be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against......
-
Winslow v. Nixon, ED 80732.
...judgment under the standard of review set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Laclede County v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the we......
-
Thompson v. Koenen, WD 74549.
...law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.” Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412, 413 (Mo. banc 2001).Laclede Cnty. v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). “We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment and di......