Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Missouri Department of Revenue

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 4, 2003No. SC 84347Published

1Concurrence

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., Chief Justice,

concurring.

I agree that the judgment must be reversed for lack of standing. I write separately, however, because the majority addresses other issues, particularly sever-ability under section 1.140, RSMo, that are unnecessary for resolution at this point in the proceedings and that were not raised, briefed, or argued by the parties. Standing on the other hand, is jurisdictional in nature and may be addressed sua sponte. See State ex rel. Mathewson v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of St. Louis County, 841 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Mo. banc 1992) (“Standing is akin to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Mathewson v. Board of Election CommissionersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  2. Home Builders Ass'n of Greater St. Louis, Inc. v. City of WildwoodMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Worlledge v. City of GreenwoodMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Hinton v. City of St. JosephMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Switzer v. HartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997

1 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