Patty Sue, Inc. v. City of Springfield
381 S.W.3d 360
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bar challenges Springfield's General Ordinance 5927, enacted April 5, 2011, as conflicting with Missouri law.
- Bar contends Section 71.010 prohibits municipalities from enforcing a nonconforming ordinance.
- Bar argues ICAA exemptions for bars (191.769(5)) permit nonsmoking areas yet Bar remains subject to ICAA restrictions.
- Joint stipulation (July 25, 2011) sets forth undisputed facts: Bar historically allowed indoor smoking; posted nonsmoking-area notices; Bar is a tavern within city limits.
- Ordinance effective June 11, 2011 bans smoking in all enclosed public places including bars; requires signs and ashtray removal; mandates enforcement cooperation.
- Trial court granted City summary judgment, holding no conflict with ICAA; Bar appealed seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Ordinance conflict with the ICAA? | Bar: ordinance prohibits what ICAA permits for bars. | City: ordinance regulates an area not expressly governed by ICAA and does not conflict when read as a whole. | No conflict; ordinance valid. |
| Does ICAA’s bar exemption imply municipalities cannot prohibit smoking in bars? | Bar: exemption forecloses local prohibition in bars. | City: ICAA is prohibitory and does not affirmatively permit smoking; local regulation can extend restrictions. | ICAA does not preclude local prohibition in bars; no preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Kansas City v. Carlson, 292 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. App. 2009) (no conflict where ordinance expands prohibition beyond state law)
- Vest v. Kansas City, 194 S.W.2d 38 (Mo. 1946) (test for ordinance vs statute conflict: prohibit what statute prohibits or permit what statute prohibits)
- LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. banc 1975) (supreme authority on conflict when ordinance contradicts statute)
- Home Builders Assoc. of Greater St. Louis, Inc. v. City of Wildwood, 107 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. banc 2003) (ordinance may supplement but not contradict state law)
- Morrow v. Kansas City, 788 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. banc 1990) (statutory construction to ascertain legislative intent; extra-provisioning by ordinance considered)
- State ex rel. Rhodes v. Crouch, 621 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1981) (statutory construction principles guiding intent and reasonable, logical interpretation)
- Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 119, 112 S.W. 516 (Mo. App. 1908) (early authority on conflict between local and state regulation)
- Page, 636 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. banc 1982) (statutory supremacy over inconsistent ordinance)