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

  1. City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. State Ex Rel. Office of the Public Counsel v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2007
  3. Endicott v. Display Technologies, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2002
  4. Rhodes v. BlairMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Missouri Forge, Inc. v. TurnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API