Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schaefer v. Koster

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 14, 2011No. SC 91130Published

1DissentZel M. Fischer, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion because I disagree that Cindy Brandt has an adequate remedy at law. The statutory purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to “afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations.” Section 527.120, RSMo 2000.1 The principal opinion does not serve that purpose and ignores the statute of limitations set out in § 516.500, which precludes Brandt (or anyone else for that matter) from successfully raising the valid defenses based on article III, sections 21 and 23, of the Missouri Constitution in…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  2. Wilkes v. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1988
  3. State v. OlinghouseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980
  4. Hammerschmidt v. Boone CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  5. Fust v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997

14 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