State ex rel. Baumann v. Quinn, 47897
| Decision Date | 11 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 47897,47897,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missourl ex rel. Alfred A. BAUMANN, Respondent, v. John J. QUINN, Excise Commissioner of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thos. J. Neenan, City Counselor, James J. Gallagher, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant John J. Quinn, Excise Commissioner of the City of St. Louis.
Sorkis J. Webbe, St. Louis, for respondent.
Alfred A. Baumann was the operator of a tavern in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. On March 31, 1959, a hearing was held before John J. Quinn, Excise Commissioner of the city, on a charge that Baumann had sold intoxicating liquor to minors. The Commissioner revoked Baumann's license 'effective 12.01 A.M., April 2nd, 1959.' Baumann filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for a review. That court set aside the revocation on the ground that Sec. 536.070, Subsection 4, V.A.M.S., 1959 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, was unconstitutional. The costs were assessed against the defendant Excise Commissioner. The Excise Commissioner appealed to this court.
The Circuit Court held that the section of the statutes, supra, was unconstitutional because it violated Article V. Sec. 22 of the 1945 Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S. Note what the trial court said in its order:
'1. That Section 536.070, paragraph 4 Revised Statutes of Missouri, Cum.Supp. ,1957, is unconstitutional, void and of no effect in so far as it provides that a party in hearing before an administrative agency must request that the proceedings be recorded at his own expense whenever the agency does not regularly cause its proceedings to be suitably recorded, for the reason that the decisions and orders of the Excise Commissioner of The City of St. Louis, are subject to direct review by the courts and such review includes the determination whether the decision and order is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, as required by Article V, Section 22 of the Constitution of Missouri, 1945.
Paragraph 4 of Sec. 563.070, supra, reads as follows:
Sec. 22 of Article V, supra, reads: 'All final decisions, findings, rules and orders of any administrative officer or body existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law; and such review shall include the determination whether the same are authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required by law, whether the same are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.'
The record shows Baumann was given written notice that the Excise Commissioner did not provide stenographers to record and preserve evidence at a hearing; further, that if any party desired such a recording of the evidence, arrangements should be made therefor. Baumann did not make any request for the recording of the evidence.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether under the Constitution, Sec. 22 of Article V, quoted supra, the Excise Commissioner of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is required, even though no request therefor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lange v. Baker
...supra, 245 S.W.2d loc. cit. 96(4); Bales v. Jefferson City Lines, Inc., 239 Mo.App. 264, 267, 192 S.W.2d 27, 28(2); State ex rel. Baumann v. Quinn, Mo., 337 S.W.2d 84, 86(1). And where, as here, exhibits are omitted from the transcript and are not filed with the appellate court [Rule 82.15]......
-
State v. Harris, 61674
...necessary to determine all questions presented to the appellate court for review, Rules 28.18 and 81.12 (1979); State ex rel. Baumann v. Quinn, 337 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.1960); Jackson v. State, 514 S.W.2d 532, 533-34 (Mo.1974); State v. Thompkins, 277 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Mo.1955); as defendant fa......
-
State v. Clark, 35835
...general rule is that the burden of presenting a record of the proceeding to the appellate court is on the appealing party, State v. Quinn, 337 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.1960). The appellant must bring the reviewing court a transcript of the proceedings, including the evidence to show error, State v......
-
Labrayere v. Goldberg, 61421.
...decisions apply to the department of revenue on the facts presented in this appeal, in light of the decisions in State ex rel. Baumann v. Quinn, 337 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. 1960); State ex rel. Perno v. Quinn, 558 S.W.2d 320, 320 (Mo.App. 1977); State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917, 920 (M......