Tuffli v. BOARD OF ED. OF WENTZVILLE, ETC., 42097.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 42097.,42097. |
| Citation | 603 S.W.2d 77 |
| Parties | Peter W. TUFFLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the WENTZVILLE R-4 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Gail Donnelly Bader, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul F. Niedner, St. Charles, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff Peter W. Tuffli sought review of the termination of his employment as a teacher by the defendant Wentzville (St. Charles County) school district. He filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court of St. Louis County. The issue to be determined here is which circuit court, St. Louis County or St. Charles County, has jurisdiction of plaintiff's petition for review.
By his petition plaintiff pleaded he was a resident of St. Louis County, and was relying on a provision of the general Administrative Procedure and Review Statute, Section 536.110.3, V.A.M.S.1, vesting permissible jurisdiction in the county of his residence.
Defendant school district moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground plaintiff had failed to file a timely notice of appeal "as prescribed by Section 168.120 M.R.S." in St. Charles County, where defendant school district is located. That statute gives a teacher the right to appeal the school board's decision "to the circuit court of the county where the employing school district is located".
The basic issue is which of the two statutes controlled the trial court's jurisdiction. The Legislature has the right to declare that specific circuit courts have "exclusive jurisdiction on appeal from the orders of administrative agency". State ex rel. State Tax Commission v. Luten, 459 S.W.2d 3751 (Mo.banc 1970). A specific statute prevails over a general one. State, etc. v. Dickherber, 576 S.W.2d 5321 (Mo. banc 1979). And to the extent two statutes providing for administrative review conflict, the special statute will prevail over the general statute, particularly where the special statute was, as here, enacted later than the general statute. Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 3081 (Mo.banc 1968).
We hold Section 168.120 did, and Section 536.110 did not, govern plaintiff's petition for review. The proper place for plaintiff's action, as the trial court held, was in St. Charles County, not in St. Louis County.
This brings us to the issue of proper disposition of this appeal.
Defendant school district had moved the trial court to dismiss plaintiff's appeal on the ground plaintiff had not filed a timely petition for review in the circuit court of St....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McNary v. Hais
...of statutory construction, furthermore, dictate that a specific statute will prevail over a general one. Tuffli v. Board of Education of Wentzville, 603 S.W.2d 77, 78 (Mo.App.1980). The appellant in the present controversy must decide at his peril whether § 49.230, RSMo 1978 which provides ......
-
State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Crouch, 13803
...State Tax Comm'n v. Walsh, 315 S.W.2d 830, 835 (Mo. banc 1958); Brogoto v. Wiggins, 458 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo.1970); and Tuffli v. Board of Ed., 603 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.App.1980). See also State ex rel. Ballard v. Luten, 555 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Mo.App.1977) (The provisions of Chapter 536 with respect ......
-
Hollis v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 16502
...as here, enacted later than the general statute. Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968)." Tuffli v. Board of Ed. of Wentzville, Etc., 603 S.W.2d 77, 78 (Mo.App.1980). Also see State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Crouch, 687 S.W.2d 639, 641 Section 302.535 is the more specific......
-
Gamble v. Hoffman
...administrative provisions. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Moran, 439 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Mo.1969); Tuffli v. Board of Education of the Wentzville R-4 School District, 603 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.App.1980). In those cases, however, the respective statutes applied to a specified agency which covered an area o......