Humane Society of the United States v. State
405 S.W.3d 532
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Humane Society, Dogwood Animal Shelter, and Stray Rescue of St. Louis, Inc. sue the State of Missouri and the Missouri Department of Agriculture in a declaratory judgment action challenging SB795 (2010) and its amendment to section 273.327.
- SB795 (2010) repealed and reenacted section 273.327, removing animal shelters from the exemption from licensing fees.
- SB161 (2011) repealed and reenacted section 273.327 with a higher fee cap, allegedly curing any procedural defect in SB795 (2010).
- Humane Society asserted SB795 (2010) violated article III, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution by amending the bill to change its original purpose.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the state, holding the challenge moot due to SB161 (2011)’s repeal and reenactment.
- Court holds it has jurisdiction to review the constitutional challenge to SB795 (2010) but ultimately finds the action moot because SB161 (2011) superseded the challenged provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the claim moot due to repeal and reenactment? | Humane Society argues mootness is inappropriate; Ward-like continuity should apply and C.C. Dillon should not bar review. | State argues SB161 (2011) terminates the dispute because it superseded SB795 (2010) and rendered the challenge hypothetical. | Moot; repeal and reenactment terminated the challenged issue. |
| Did SB795 (2010) violate article III, section 21 by amending its original purpose? | Humane Society contends SB795 (2010) was amended to change original purpose and is unconstitutional. | State contends procedural defect was cured by repeal and reenactment; no live controversy remains. | Not reached due to mootness; merits not decided. |
| Should C.C. Dillon be reexamined or limited by Ward's reasoning? | Humane Society seeks reexamination of C.C. Dillon, arguing Ward-based continuity applies to procedural defects. | State argues C.C. Dillon governs and Ward is inapplicable to procedural defect cases. | C.C. Dillon controls; Ward inapplicable for procedural defect context. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. banc 2000) (mootness when enactment supersedes relied statute; procedural defects must be cured for relief)
- Bank of Washington v. McAuliffe, 676 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. banc 1984) (enactment supersedes statute; mootness where no controversy remains)
- State ex rel. Peebles v. Moore, 99 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. 1936) (repeal of former statute abrogates the statute)
- Ward, 40 S.W.2d 1074 (Mo. 1918) (continuation principle of repeal and reenactment in substantive context)
- Missouri Ass’n of Club Executives v. State, 208 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2006) (purpose and notice requirements under article III, §21)
- Legends Bank v. State, 361 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2012) (determine bill’s original purpose by earliest title and content)
- Lincoln Credit Co. v. Peach, 636 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1982) (original purpose determined at time of introduction)