Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Elson v. Koehr

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 29, 1993No. 75058Published

1DissentHolstein, Judge

I respectfully dissent. As the majority opinion acknowledges, the term “agent” has more than one definition. Thus, when undefined in a statute, the word lends itself to judicial construction. In this particular statute, the word “agent” is modified by the phrase “for the transaction of [the corporation’s] usual and customary business.” This phrase has the effect of compounding the ambiguity.

Whenever ambiguity exists in a statute, it is the responsibility of the courts to construe the statute consistently with what the legislature intended. MaGee v. Blue Ridge Prof. Bldg., 821 S.W.2d 889, 843…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. David Ranken, Jr. Technical Institute v. BoykinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  2. Milligan v. Southern Express, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Litzinger v. Pulitzer Publishing CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
  4. State Ex Rel. Rhodes v. CrouchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1981
  5. Rouse v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1979

4 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