Weinstock v. Holden
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Per curiam
This matter comes before us on the Court’s own motion to determine whether sec. 105.464, RSMo Supp.1998, prohibits, and indeed criminalizes, the participation of the judges of this Court or any article V judge from hearing a case involving the validity of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, 1997 (SCR3) which, among other matters, touches on judicial salaries. The Court requested and has considered the suggestions filed by all parties to the case.
As amended in 1997, sec. 105.464 provides as follows:
No person serving in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity shall participate in such capacity in any…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- State Tax Commission v. Administrative Hearing CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Rose v. State Board of Registration for the Healing ArtsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- In Matter of ConnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- State v. BanksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Barrett v. GreitensMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
- Weinstock v. HoldenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1999
- B. McLaughlin v. MT LegislatureMontana Supreme Court · 2021
- In the Matter of Honorable Mary E. HOWES, District Court Judge of the Seventh Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
- Amended August 16, 2016 in the Matter of Honorable Mary E. Howes, District Court Judge of the Seventh Judicial District. On Application of the IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.