United C.O.D. v. State, SC 85537.

Citation150 S.W.3d 311
Decision Date07 December 2004
Docket NumberNo. SC 85537.,SC 85537.
PartiesUNITED C.O.D., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, et al., Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
150 S.W.3d 311
UNITED C.O.D., Appellant,
STATE of Missouri, et al., Respondents.
No. SC 85537.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
December 7, 2004.

[150 S.W.3d 312]

Herman L. Jimerson, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maureen C. Beekley, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, Cynthia L. Hoemann, Patricia Redington, Associate County Counselor, Clayton, Patricia A. Hageman, Edward J. Hanlon, St. Louis, for respondents.


United C.O.D. is a collective group of independent cab drivers and owners operating in the city and county of St. Louis. It filed suit challenging the validity of sections 67.1800 to 67.1822, RSMo Supp.2003.1 These sections create a metropolitan taxicab commission. Pursuant to these sections, the commission adopted a code regulating vehicles for hire. The trial court enjoined the commission from applying the code's dress code provisions to persons who certify that they are subject to a religious mandate that prohibits or conflicts with full compliance. In all other respects the court denied relief to United, which appeals. This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. article V, section 3. The judgment is affirmed.

150 S.W.3d 313

United's first point asserts that the statutes violate various constitutional rights. To properly raise a constitutional question, one must: (1) raise the constitutional question at the first available opportunity; (2) designate specifically the constitutional provision claimed to have been violated, such as by explicit reference to the article and section or by quotation of the provision itself; (3) state the facts showing the violation; and (4) preserve the constitutional question throughout for appellate review. Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 780 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo. banc 1989). A statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be held to be unconstitutional unless it clearly and undoubtedly contravenes the constitution. Courts will enforce a statute unless it plainly and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution. When the constitutionality of a statute is attacked, the burden of proof is upon the party claiming that the statute is unconstitutional. Adams By and Through Adams v. Children's Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898, 903 (Mo. banc 1992). This Court will resolve doubts in favor of the procedural and substantive validity of an act of the legislature. Hoskins v. Business Men's Assur., 79 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. banc 2002).

As to an equal protection challenge, the first step is to determine whether the challenged statutory classification operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. If so, the classification is subject to strict judicial scrutiny to determine whether it is necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest. Otherwise, review is limited to a determination of whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Doe v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 30, 2006
    ...to disclose pleas of guilt on job applications and may be restricted from entering certain types of employment). Cf. United C.O.D. v. State, 150 S.W.3d 311, 313-14 (Mo. banc 2004) (Missouri's Constitution differs from United States Constitution in that it specifies only limits on legislatur......
  • State v. Pike
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2005
    ... ... Page 470 ... the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States and Missouri constitutions. All statutes are presumed to be constitutional; a statute will not be held unconstitutional unless "it clearly and ... ...
  • Weinschenk v. State, SC 88039
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2006
    ... ... state to block enforcement of the law on the grounds that it interfered with the fundamental right to vote as protected by the Missouri and United States constitutions. Ms. Weinschenk and the others claimed that the new law required them and other voters — particularly those who are ... ...
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 11, 2010
    ...Sys. v. Pemiscot County, 256 S.W.3d 98, 311 S.W.3d 741 102 (Mo. banc 2008) (alterations in original), quoting United C.O.D. v. State, 150 S.W.3d 311, 313 (Mo. banc 2004). "Courts will enforce a statute unless it plainly and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution." Un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT