State ex inf. Ashcroft, ex rel. Plaza Properties, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 66560
| Decision Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 66560,66560 |
| Citation | 687 S.W.2d 875 |
| Parties | STATE ex inf. John ASHCROFT, ex rel. PLAZA PROPERTIES, INC., Appellants, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY and Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Phillip K. Gebhardt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, William V. McLeese, Kansas City, for appellants.
Paul E. Vardeman, Michael T. White, Mark J. Bredemeier, Richard N. Ward, City Atty., John F. Ingraham, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Cole County denying a petition in the nature of quo warranto brought in the name of the State of Missouri and the name of the Attorney General at the relation of Plaza Properties, Inc., as relators against the City of Kansas City and its Tax Increment Financing Commission (hereinafter Commission). It involves a plan for the redevelopment of a small tract (lot 56, Wornall Park) adjacent to the Country Club Plaza. The ultimate purpose of the proceeding is to validate bonds proposed to be issued by respondent City and Commission pursuant to the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, §§ 99.800-99.865, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984. The only unique feature of this case is the active participation of the Attorney General in the proceeding, it being customary that the Attorney General permit the moving party, the relator, to prosecute the action "to final conclusion in the name of the relator." Rule 98.02(c). Clearly, this is not an action originated by the Attorney General filing in his own name and whether or not the preliminary order shall issue is discretionary with the court. Rule 98.04.
In State ex rel. Wagner v. St. Louis County Port Authority, 604 S.W.2d 592, 607 (Mo.banc 1980) it was noted that "the time has come for us to reexamine the practice of entertaining friendly quo warranto proceedings where the bond issuing authority is the real party in interest ..." (Welliver, J., dissenting, Rendlen, J. concurring).
The petition for quo warranto herein is identical to the petition for quo warranto filed in this Court by the same parties on June 7, 1984, No. 66070. In our discretion we denied that petition on July 17, 1984. The only difference in what we now have before us is that the same matter has been filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County where that court "denied the writ" without benefit of findings of fact or conclusions of law. This Court is now faced with the identical request which it denied July 17, 1984, with the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steen v. Colombo, 16550
... ... Gallaher, Carson & Coil, P.C., Jefferson City, for defendants-appellants ... to amend their responsive pleading so as to state two affirmative counterclaims against the ... of trust in favor of Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc. Schedule B, Section 2, recited fifteen ... Page 174 ... error. State ex inf., Ashcroft ex rel. Plaza Properties, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 687 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Mo. banc 1985); ... ...
-
Curchin v. Missouri Indus. Development Bd.
... ... Blunt, Charles H. Stitt, Kansas City, for respondent ... bonds containing a clause providing a state tax credit for losses on default of the bonds ... ) whether, in view of our holding in State ex inf. Ashcroft, ex rel. Plaza Properties ... Page ... concerning Missouri Specialty Castings, Inc. (Specialty) and proposed to issue $5,000,000 in ... ...
-
Austin v. Trotters Corp.
...ruling on Count III was, at least in part, based. "The burden is on the appealing parties to demonstrate error." State, et al., Plaza Prop. v. Kansas City, 687 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Mo. banc 1985). On appeal, the trial court's judgment is presumed valid, and the burden is on appellants to demons......
-
United Siding Supply, Inc. v. Residential Imp. Services, Inc.
...772 S.W.2d at 654. On appeal, the burden is on the appellant to prove error in the trial court's judgment. State, et. al., Plaza Prop. v. Kansas City, 687 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Mo. banc 1985). United Siding has not met this burden and has failed to establish that as a matter of law the agreement......