Legal Opinion · Dissent
Ferguson v. Hillhouse
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided October 6, 2009No. ED 92467Published
1DissentKenneth M. Romines, C.J.
I dissent. This case is not moot, just inconvenient. Inconvenient because as Courts we are reluctant to reverse the action of elected officials.1
At issue is the meaning to be given Section 72.080 RSMo. That section reads
“... (1) Whenever a number of voters equal to fifteen percent of the registered voters in the area proposed to be incorporated shall present a petition to the governing body of the county in which such city, town, village or area is situated, such petition shall describe, by metes and bounds, the area to be incorporated and be accompanied by a plat thereof, shall state the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- State Ex Rel. Office of the Public Counsel v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2007
- Endicott v. Display Technologies, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2002
- Rhodes v. BlairMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Missouri Forge, Inc. v. TurnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003