State ex rel. Collector of Winchester v. Jamison
2012 Mo. LEXIS 2
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Winchester filed a class action against Charter on behalf of municipalities for unpaid business license taxes.
- Section 71.675 prohibits cities from acting as class representatives in such actions, but allows single-city suits.
- Winchester argued section 71.675 effectively amends Rule 52.08 and thus violates the constitutional requirement for laws limited to amending procedural rules.
- Trial court struck Winchester’s class claims under §71.675; Winchester sought extraordinary relief.
- Court granted preliminary writ of prohibition; now issues a permanent mandamus directing vacatur of the strike order.
- Court analyzed whether §71.675 constitutionally amends a procedural rule rather than altering substantive standing rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §71.675 amend Rule 52.08 constitutionally? | Winchester argues it silently amends Rule 52.08. | Charter argues §71.675 is substantive, not procedural. | No; §71.675 violates art. V, §5 by not being a law limited to the amendment. |
| Is §71.675 a standing issue or a procedural impairment on representation? | Winchester asserts it removes class-representation authority. | Charter claims it affects standing substantively. | Procedural; §71.675 changes who may represent a class, not standing itself. |
| Do court rules supersede conflicting statutes in procedural matters? | Rule 52.08 governs class actions; statute cannot override. | Statutes can modify procedural rules if law-limited. | Constitutional rule: statutes must be law-limited to amend rules; §71.675 fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. banc 1993) (supremacy of court rules over conflicting provisions in procedural matters)
- State ex rel. K.C. v. Gant, 661 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. banc 1983) (law must be limited to purpose to amend a rule; broad statutes invalid)
- State v. Reese, 920 S.W.2d 94 (Mo. banc 1996) (need for law to be limited to amending the rule; broad revision invalid)
- Farmer v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2002) (constitutional limitation on amending procedural rules)
- Wilkes v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm’n, 762 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. banc 1988) (procedural machinery vs. substantive rights)