Legal Opinion · Dissent
State Ex Rel. May Department Stores Co. v. Koupal
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided July 21, 1992No. 74251Published
1Dissent
*321PAUL M. SPINDEN, Special Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that it is giving the language of § 135.225(8), RSMo 1986, its “plain and ordinary meaning,” but, in my opinion, the statute’s plain meaning requires that it be construed in relation to § 135.110, RSMo 1986.
I
The preamble to § 135.225 instructs that credits given to new business facilities located in an enterprise zone be “on the same terms and conditions specified in [§§ 135.-100 to 135.160]” with the exceptions noted. Hence, when § 135.225(8) mandates that a new business facility located in an enterprise…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Gregory v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.