Redpath v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n
| Decision Date | 19 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | William REDPATH, Appellant, v. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Respondent. 41860. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
George Alex Bartlett, Jefferson City, John C. Craft, Kansas City, for appellant.
Dennis J. Redel, Kim Renee Reid, Government Counsels, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before NUGENT, C.J., and FENNER, J., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.
Appellant, William Redpath, appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming an Order of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (Commission). The Commission's Order directed that an outdoor advertising sign owned by and located on property owned by appellant be removed without compensation.
The sign in question is a billboard advertising a radio station, KFKF (KFKF sign). The KFKF sign is located off I-35 in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, and is denominated by the Commission as No. R-I-35-048-105-NB-13.
On August 6, 1979, the Commission issued a Notice to Remove Outdoor Advertising directed to appellant. The Notice alleged that the KFKF sign was unlawful in that it was erected after January 1, 1968, but before March 30, 1972, contrary to the spacing provisions of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969.
Appellant presents two arguments on appeal but his argument that there was not competent and substantial evidence which established that the KFKF sign was in violation of the spacing provision of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969, is dispositive herein.
Section 226.540(3)(b), RSMo 1969, provides that "[n]o two sign structures facing in the same direction ... shall be spaced less than one hundred fifty feet apart unless separated by a building, structure or roadway." There is no dispute that the KFKF sign was less than one hundred fifty feet from, and facing the same direction as, a sign referenced in the record as the Gannett sign. Appellant does not argue that there was a building, structure or roadway separating the signs.
Appellant argues that to show his sign, the KFKF sign, in violation of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969, the Commission was required to show that the KFKF sign was erected after the Gannett sign. The Commission argues that the statute does not require proof of which sign was first erected. The Commission's position on appeal is that the mere fact that they showed the KFKF sign to be within one hundred fifty feet of another sign entitles them to order the KFKF sign removed without compensation.
When there is ambiguity in the language of a statute, the court seeks to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers from the language used, to give effect to that intent if possible, and to consider words in their plain and ordinary meaning. State ex rel. Lebeau v. Kelly, 697 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Mo.App.1985). The purpose and object of the statute must always be considered and the court must presume that the legislature intended a logical result. Id. at 315.
It is clear that the purpose of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969, is to prohibit the construction of outdoor advertising signs, in the areas specified, within one hundred fifty feet of an already existing sign unless the signs are separated by a building, structure or roadway. Not only is this the logical interpretation of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969, but it is also the interpretation accepted by the Commission pursuant to its Notice to Remove Outdoor Advertising herein. The Notice declares the KFKF sign to be unlawful for having been erected contrary to the spacing provisions of § 226.540(3), RSMo 1969. Therefore, the Notice itself, in effect, alleges that the KFKF sign was erected within one hundred fifty feet of an existing sign, otherwise there would not have been a spacing violation created by the erection of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Mama Stuffeati's, s. WD
...The terms of a document must generally be proven by production of the original of that document. Redpath v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n, 783 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo.App.W.D.1989). Secondary evidence may be admitted if the offering party demonstrates that the primary evidence is lost or ......
-
Wheelhouse Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Bommarito
...rule is that generally the terms of a document must be proved by production of the original document." Redpath v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n, 783 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo.App.1989). The "best evidence rule applies only when the evidence is a writing or recording." Cooley v. Dir. of Reve......
-
Larabee v. Washington
...statute must always be considered and the court must presume the legislature intended a logical result. Redpath v. Missouri Hwy. and Transp. Comm'n, 783 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo.App.1989). Section 408.040.2 plainly indicates that where the conditions of a settlement offer preceding recovery of a......
-
Boroughf v. Bank of America, NA
...rule is that generally the terms of a document must be proved by production of the original document." Redpath v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n, 783 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Mo.App.1989). The "best evidence rule applies only when the evidence is offered to prove the terms or contents of a wri......