St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 62354.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 62354.,62354. |
| Citation | 608 S.W.2d 413 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS COUNTY et al., Appellants, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thomas W. Wehrle, St. Louis County Counselor, Clayton, for appellants.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Michael Finkelstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philip Baker, Counsel, State Tax Commission, Jefferson City, for respondents.
The trial court entered judgment dismissing St. Louis County's petition for review of an order of the State Tax Commission which required the implementation of the County's plan for equalization of real property assessments within St. Louis County. The judgment was appealed to the court of appeals and the appeal was transferred prior to opinion by order of this Court. Mo.Const., art. V, § 10. The case arises from the same facts articulated in State ex rel. State Tax Commission v. Schneider, (Mo.banc 1980), decided concurrently. The question in this case is whether the order of the State Tax Commission is reviewable as a "contested case" pursuant to § 536.100, RSMo 1978. The order is not judicially reviewable in an action by the County; dismissal of the petition for review was proper.
Judicial review of administrative action is provided in § 536.100 RSMo 1978, and § 536.150, RSMo 1978. Section 536.150 pertains only to review of decisions affecting private rights and interests. May Department Stores Co. v. State Tax Commission, 308 S.W.2d 748 (Mo.1958). Section 536.100 provides that "any person who has exhausted all administrative remedies provided by law and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case * * * shall be entitled to judicial review thereof * * *." A contested case is defined as "a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing." Section 536.010(2), RSMo 1978. "Contested case" within the meaning of § 536.100 does not mean every case in which there may be a contest about "rights, duties or privileges," or every case in which a hearing is required. The element of adversity is essential to the meaning as it is used in that section; in using the term "contested case" in § 536.100, the General Assembly contemplated an adversary hearing. City of Richmond Heights v. Board of Equalization, 586 S.W.2d 338, 342-43 (Mo.banc 1979).
Section 137.750, RSMo Supp. 1979, pertaining to general reassessment, provides in subsection 6 that "a plan shall be approved if not rejected by the Commission within sixty days after a hearing thereon. * * *" Such a hearing, however, is not in the nature of an adversarial proceeding. As evidenced by §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zink v. Lombardi
...“Section 536.150 pertains only to review of decisions affecting private rights and interests.” St. Louis Cnty. v. State Tax Comm'n, 608 S.W.2d 413, 414 (Mo.1980) (en banc). “[T]o make a prima facie case under Section 536.150, an individual must plead facts that, if true, would show that he ......
-
Shawnee Bend Special Road Dist. 'D' v. Camden County Com'n
...Cabool, supra, 689 S.W.2d at 53. A case is not necessarily a contested case because a statute requires a hearing. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 608 S.W.2d 413, 414 (Mo. banc 1980); City of Richmond Heights v. Bd. of Equalization, 586 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Mo. banc 1979). The existenc......
-
Franklin v. Board of Directors, School Dist. of Kansas City
...in order for a "hearing" to qualify as a proceeding in a contested case, the hearing must be adversarial in nature, St. Louis County v. State Tax Comm'n., 608 S.W.2d 413, 414 (Mo. banc Conversely, the courts have construed the term "noncontested case" to mean an agency determination of the ......
-
State ex rel. Div. of Adult Institutions, Dept. of Corrections and Human Resources v. Brackman
...is not a "contested case" within the meaning of Chapter 536. A "contested case" contemplates an adversary hearing. St. Louis County v. State Tax Com'n, 608 S.W.2d 413, 414 (Mo. banc 1980). In order for there to be a "contested case" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, pr......