State, at Information of Martin v. City of Independence, No. 58483
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
Citation | 518 S.W.2d 63 |
Parties | The STATE of Missouri, at the information of Ralph L. MARTIN, Prosecuting Attorney of Jackson County, Missouri, and at the relation of Glenn H. Binger, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, Missouri, a |
Decision Date | 16 December 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 58483 |
Page 63
MARTIN, Prosecuting Attorney of Jackson County,
Missouri, and at the relation of Glenn
H. Binger, et al., Respondents,
v.
CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, Missouri, a
Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court En Banc Denied
Jan. 13, 1975.
Page 64
Rufus Burrus, W. Raleigh Gough, Independence, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Howard C. Wright, Jr., City Atty., Springfield, Robert M. Clayton, II, City Counselor, Hannibal, George C. Baldridge, City Atty., Joplin, Aaron A. Wilson, City Counselor, Carrol C. Kennett, Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, for amici curiae.
James S. Cottingham, City Counselor, Thomas D. Cochran, James L. Gillham, Asst. City Counselors, Independence, for defendant-appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appeal from judgment in proceeding in the nature of quo warranto ousting the City of Independence, Missouri, from exercising jurisdiction over territory purportedly annexed to the City by charter amendments approved by the voters at a special election. The questions are whether the legislative body of a constitutional charter city may, by ordinance, initiate a proposed amendment of its charter and submit it to the voters for approval at a special election under Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, V.A.M.S.; and, if so, and if the purpose of the proposed amendment as in this instance was annexation of territory to the City of Independence, whether the City was required to submit the proposition of annexation at separate elections held simultaneously in the several territories proposed for annexation under Section 71.870, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The City of Independence is a constitutional charter city under Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 19. On September 18, 1972, its council passed four ordinances, each of which called for a special election to be held in the City of Independence on December 5, 1972, for submission to the voters of the City of proposals to amend the city charter for the purpose of annexing four separate areas or territories in the unincorporated area of Jackson County to the City. Notice of the time, places of holding and purpose of the election was ordered to be given by publication in at least one daily newspaper published in the City, once a week for four consecutive weeks, with the first publication of said notice to be made at least twenty-eight days before, and the last to be made within two weeks of the election. The effective dates of annexation were to be December 31, 1973, for the first area, December 31, 1974, for the second area, and December 31, 1975, for the remaining two areas.
The special election was held in the City December 5, 1972. A majority of the voters of the City approved the four charter amendments by which the four annexations of territory were to be accomplished. On November 3, 1970, the voters of Jackson County at a special election adopted a constitutional home rule charter form of government for Jackson County to become effective January 1, 1973.
Pursuant to the result of the special election of December 5, 1972, the City of
Page 65
Independence proceeded 'to take all necessary actions to subject to its jurisdiction each of said territories * * * and will on the effective dates * * * subject all the owners of property and residents in said area to the laws and ordinances of the said City of Independence * * *.'Ralph L. Martin, prosecuting attorney, at the relation of twelve residents and owners of property within the several annexed areas, alleged in the information in the nature of quo warranto that the city of Independence exceeded its powers and unlawfully conducted the charter amendment election at a special election contrary to Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, and bacause the City did not hold simultaneous elections in the unincorporated areas subject to the annexation in accordance with Sections 71.870 to 71.920, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The matter was heard June 27, 1973, after which the court found 'that each of said ordinances as so adopted and ratified at such election was and is void and of nolegal force and effect, because under Sec. 20 of Art. VI of the Constitution, the legislative body of the City had no authority to call for a vote on such questions at a special election, but was confined to calling a vote thereon at the next general election held at least sixty days after the passage of said ordinances, the court further finding that a special election to vote on such questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keller v. Marion County Ambulance Dist., No. 72979
...and associated words are not in conflict there is no necessity to harmonize them. State ex rel. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 In this case the majority has failed to point out in what way the word "fees" is ambiguous. The majority opinion does not find the word......
-
Associated Industries of Missouri v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, No. 68671
...a whole so as not to destroy the general intent and purpose of the framers. State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974). In doing so, it is permissible to consult the proceedings and debates of the framers. Leachman, supra, at p. 926. Moreover, th......
-
Barnes v. Bailey, No. 67631
...amendment." Boone County Court v. State, 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). See also State at Inf. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974); State v. Atterbury, 300 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Mo. banc Before interpreting the two amendments in question, it must be noted that ......
-
Tichenor v. Missouri State Lottery Com'n, No. 69992
...are given a broader construction, due to their more permanent character. State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.1974). In determining the meaning of a constitutional provision the court must first undertake to ascribe to the words the meaning which......
-
Keller v. Marion County Ambulance Dist., No. 72979
...and associated words are not in conflict there is no necessity to harmonize them. State ex rel. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 In this case the majority has failed to point out in what way the word "fees" is ambiguous. The majority opinion does not find the word......
-
Associated Industries of Missouri v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, No. 68671
...a whole so as not to destroy the general intent and purpose of the framers. State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974). In doing so, it is permissible to consult the proceedings and debates of the framers. Leachman, supra, at p. 926. Moreover, th......
-
Barnes v. Bailey, No. 67631
...amendment." Boone County Court v. State, 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). See also State at Inf. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974); State v. Atterbury, 300 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Mo. banc Before interpreting the two amendments in question, it must be noted that ......
-
Tichenor v. Missouri State Lottery Com'n, No. 69992
...are given a broader construction, due to their more permanent character. State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.1974). In determining the meaning of a constitutional provision the court must first undertake to ascribe to the words the meaning which......