McCoy v. Caldwell County, SC 85498.
| Decision Date | 12 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 85498.,SC 85498. |
| Citation | 145 S.W.3d 427 |
| Parties | Michael A. McCOY and John A. Oaks, Appellants, v. CALDWELL COUNTY, Missouri and Caldwell County Sheriff Kirby L. Brelsford, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Cole County, Thomas J. Brown, III, J.
Sean P. McCauley, Lawrence G. Rebman, Steve A.J. Bukaty, Overland Park, KS, for Appellants.
D. Keith Henson, St. Louis, for Respondents.
Michael McCoy and John Oaks appeal the circuit court's dismissal of their petitions for judicial review under the contested case provisions of the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) as set out in chapter 536, RSMo 2000. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. Affirmed.
On December 31, 2000, the respondent, Caldwell County Sheriff Kirby L. Brelsford terminated the employment of deputy sheriffs Michael McCoy and John Oaks. In August 2001, Sheriff Brelsford provided McCoy and Oaks written notice of the grounds for termination, as required by Section 57.275.1, RSMo 2000, which states in pertinent part:
Any full-time deputy sheriff upon dismissal shall be furnished with a written notice of the grounds for the dismissal. Upon receipt of the written grounds for the dismissal, the deputy sheriff may request a hearing. The request must be made to the sheriff, in writing within three working days of receipt of the grounds for dismissal. Such hearing shall take place before the hearing board to be appointed by the sheriff. The sheriff shall schedule a closed hearing within a reasonable time but within thirty days after the written request was received by the sheriff. A written report of the facts determined during the hearing shall be forwarded to the sheriff. The sheriff will review the findings, and has the final decision-making authority.
Pursuant to this statute, McCoy and Oaks timely requested a hearing, and the sheriff appointed a three-person board to review the grounds for dismissals. The board conducted a hearing on August 23, 2001, during which witnesses provided information about events that led to the dismissals. Following the hearing, the board issued written findings that supported the sheriff's decision, and after reviewing the findings, the sheriff affirmed his decision. Thereafter, McCoy and Oaks each filed petitions in the Circuit Court of Cole County requesting judicial review of the dismissals as "contested cases" under section 536.100. The sheriff and Caldwell County then filed motions to dismiss that were sustained by the circuit court on the ground that the proceeding before the hearing board was not a contested case subject to judicial review under MAPA, and consequently, the court had no jurisdiction.
As their sole point in this consolidated appeal, McCoy and Oaks contend the circuit court erroneously applied the law in dismissing their petitions for judicial review. In particular, they argue that the hearing board procedure set forth in section 57.275 satisfies the definition of a "contested case" for purposes of judicial review under section 536.100. The question of the circuit court's jurisdiction is solely an issue of law. Phillips v. Fallen, 6 S.W.3d 862, 864 (Mo. banc 1999).
Under sections 536.100 and 536.110, any person who has exhausted all administrative remedies and is aggrieved by a final decision in a "contested case" is entitled to judicial review by a circuit court of proper venue. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bajalo v. Northwestern University
...894 S.W.2d at 171-72. Since Luethans, the Missouri Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine with en banc approval (see McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Mo. 2004)). 4. We note that, although just as in this case, the plaintiff in Luethans alleged that he was retaliated against in......
-
Lampley v. Mo. Comm'n On Human Rights
...noncontested case or vice versa. See Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control , 552 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Mo. banc 2018) ; McCoy v. Caldwell Cty. , 145 S.W.3d 427, 428–29 (Mo. banc 2004).With this distinction in mind, it is important to note the Missouri Commission on Human Rights did not ren......
-
Washington v. Ladue School Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...purposes of § 536.010(4), the "law" includes any ordinance, statute, or constitutional provision that mandates a hearing. McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427, 428 (Mo. banc 2004). Hence, the right to a hearing must be determined by substantive law outside the MAPA. Physician No. 3491 v......
-
Margiotta v. CHRISTIAN HOSP.
...an at-will employee "for any reason or for no reason." Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66, 70 (Mo. banc 1998); see also McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Mo. banc 2004); Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273, 275 n. 2 (Mo. banc 1984); Johnson, 745 S.W.2d at 662; D......