State ex rel. Jackson v. Dolan
2013 Mo. LEXIS 29
Mo.2013Background
- Port Authority sought condemnation of 30.65 acres owned by Velma Jackson and Alicia Seabaugh as Trustees of the Lambert Family Trust.
- Trustees challenged the taking under § 523.271 and Article I, section 28; circuit court ordered condemnation.
- Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition; ultimately held the taking was unauthorized by law.
- Port Authority plans to lease condemned land to private tenants who would fund and benefit from a loop track expansion.
- Court held that the taking is solely for economic development under § 523.271 and thus violates the statute; prohibition made permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the taking violate § 523.271 as solely for economic development? | Trustees argue sole economic purpose. | Port Authority contends multiple purposes; loop track funding exists. | Yes; taking violates § 523.271. |
| Is the taking for public use under Article I, section 28? | Trustees assert no public use beyond private leases. | Port Authority argues public purpose via economic development. | Public use is satisfied, but § 523.271 voids the taking. |
| Are the loop-track facilitation and river commerce improvements separate purposes from economic development? | N/A | Port Authority treats loop-track and river commerce as economic development tools. | Not separate; they are included in economic development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1984) (broad public-use interpretation under takings clause)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (economic development as public use; broad interpretation)
- In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39916, 252 S.W.4th 404 (Mo. banc 1923) (liberal public-use interpretation)