Legal Opinion

Preisler v. Hayden

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 10, 1958No. 46029PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HYDE, Justice.

Declaratory judgment action to determine whether the office of License Collector of the City of St. Louis had ceased to exist because of the provisions of Sec. 22, Art. VI of our 1945 Constitution, V. A.M.S. The court found this to be a legal existing office and the laws pertaining to it to be constitutional; and plaintiff has appealed. We have jurisdiction because the construction of constitutional provisions is required.

Sec. 22 of Art. VI provides: “No law shall be enacted creating or fixing the powers, duties or compensation of any municipal office or employment, for any city…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Walker v. BusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
  2. State ex rel. Hawes v. MasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  3. Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  4. Coleman v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
  5. State ex rel. McCaffery v. MasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. McClellan v. GodfreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
  2. City of St. Louis v. Missouri Commission on Human RightsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
  3. State Ex Rel. Judges for the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
  4. State Ex Rel. Sprague v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1977
  5. Guy v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992

6 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