Legal Opinion · Dissent

Timothy S. Pestka v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 26, 2016No. SC95369Published

1Dissent

Mary R. Russell, Judge,

dissenting.'

A. Introduction

*414I respectfully dissent. HB 150 is valid and enforceable because the General Assembly followed the procedures required by the Missouri Constitution for passing a bill' over the governor’s objections. To reach its result invalidating the substantive provisions of the bill, the majority opinion reads into the text of article III, section 32 of the Missouri Constitution limitations on the plenary power of the legislature that do not appear in the plain language of the section. This reading departs from settled precedent of this Court construing…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hammerschmidt v. Boone CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  2. Brown v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  3. State Ex Rel. Smith v. AtterburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  4. Board of Education v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  5. Wright-Jones v. NasheedSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API