583 S.W.3d 436
Mo.2019Background
- Jefferson County 9-1-1 Dispatch sued the Missouri Director of Revenue in Jefferson County, seeking a declaration about the meaning and application of § 190.460 (prepaid wireless emergency service charge) and an injunction against its application to Dispatch.
- The Director moved to change venue to Cole County under the general venue statute (§ 508.010.2).
- Dispatch opposed, arguing venue was proper in Jefferson County under the declaratory-judgment venue provision (§ 536.050.1), pointing to an e-mail from a DOR employee as regulatory action.
- The Jefferson County circuit court denied the Director’s motion to change venue, finding § 536.050.1 controlled.
- The Director sought a writ of prohibition; this Court issued a preliminary writ and made it permanent, holding venue is proper in Cole County and ordering transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 536.050.1 (declaratory-judgment venue for agency rules) governs venue | Dispatch: § 536.050.1 applies because the declaratory action concerns the threatened application of an agency rule (relying on a DOR e-mail). | Director: § 536.050.2 (general venue) controls because no promulgated rule is challenged and the action is non‑tort against a state officer who resides in Cole County. | Held: § 536.050.1 does not apply; it covers only declaratory actions challenging the validity or threatened application of a promulgated administrative rule. |
| Whether the DOR e-mail constituted a promulgated rule or its application | Dispatch: The e-mail is regulatory in nature and shows threatened application of a rule. | Director: The e-mail is not a promulgated rule; Missouri rule‑making requires formal procedures not followed here. | Held: The e-mail is not a promulgated rule or application thereof; it does not trigger § 536.050.1 venue. |
| Whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy to correct venue error | Director: Prohibition is appropriate to prevent further action other than transferring venue. | Dispatch: (implicit) the circuit court properly applied § 536.050.1 so prohibition is unwarranted. | Held: Writ of prohibition is appropriate to bar further proceedings in Jefferson County and require transfer to Cole County. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Missouri Pub. Def. Comm’n v. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. banc 2009) (standards for writs of prohibition)
- State ex rel. Cullen v. Harrell, 567 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2019) (relator bears burden to show trial court exceeded authority)
- State ex rel. Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. Nixon, 282 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. banc 2009) (extraordinary writs may correct improper venue pretrial)
- State ex rel. BJC Health Sys. v. Neill, 121 S.W.3d 528 (Mo. banc 2003) (venue is statutorily controlled)
- Edwards v. Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. banc 2007) (state executive department heads reside in county where their offices and principal duties are located)
- United Pharmacal Co. of Mo. Inc. v. Mo. Bd. of Pharmacy, 159 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. banc 2005) (§ 536.050.1 applies only to challenges to promulgated rules or their application)
- State ex rel. SSM Health Care St. Louis v. Neill, 78 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. banc 2002) (prohibition may force transfer to proper venue)