Edwards v. City of Ellisville
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1300
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellants challenged Ellisville's red light camera ordinance (the Ordinance) via an eight-count class petition against Ellisville and ATS.
- The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice, adopting respondents' conclusions.
- Edwards and Bissells (directly impacted by the Ordinance) asserted standing to challenge the Ordinance; Annins and Cusumanos sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Notices of Violation and fines ($100) were issued under the Ordinance; some recipients paid the fines, others owed outstanding citations.
- Appellants alleged eight counts including declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, money had and received, self-incrimination, due process, civil conspiracy, and related theories.
- On appeal, the court granted in part and denied in part, holding the Ordinance void for conflict with state law, reversing on standing for Edwards and Bissells, and affirming dismissal of other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the Ordinance | Edwards & Bissells are directly affected; they have standing to challenge. | They lack standing unless harmed by enforcement or unless otherwise authorized by statute. | Edwards and Bissells have standing; court later held them waived/estopped on constitutional claims. |
| Waiver and estoppel of constitutional claims | Waiver/estoppel should not bar constitutional challenges if noticed timely. | Timely municipal proceedings and payment of fines preclude later constitutional challenges. | Waiver and estoppel preclude Edwards & Bissells' constitutional claims; Annins/Cusumanos not similarly barred on adequacy of remedies. |
| Conflict with state law (Section 304.281 and moving violations) | Ordinance conflicts with state red-light provisions and moving-violation point rules. | Ordinance is a valid police-power regulation and not precluded by state law. | Ordinance conflicts with 304.281 and sections 302.225/302.302; void and unenforceable. |
| Ellisville's police power and revenue-generation purpose | Ordinance is a revenue-generation scheme rather than safety-driven. | Ordinance serves public safety and falls within police power. | Court held revenue-gen claim viable; but moot because ordinance void for state-law conflict. |
| Adequate remedy at law for Annins and Cusumanos; declaratory/injunctive relief | Equitable relief needed due to ongoing prosecutions. | Adequate legal remedies exist (trial de novo, municipal court processes). | Annins and Cusumanos have adequate legal remedy; declaratory/injunction claims properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (waiver/estoppel and municipal-notice distinctions in red light cases)
- Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur, 419 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (revenue vs. police power distinction in red light ordinances)
- Smith v. City of St. Louis, 409 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (waiver/estoppel in red light camera context)
- Nottebrok v. City of Creve Coeur, 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (Nottebrok not controlling on point system conflict)
- Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. Banc 1986) (conflict test: do they permit what statute prohibits)
- Miller v. City of Manchester, 834 S.W.2d 904 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (conflict between municipal ordinance and general state laws)