Weber v. St. Louis County
2011 Mo. LEXIS 204
| Mo. | 2011Background
- In December 2006, St. Louis County enacted ordinance 23,023 adding sections 607.1300–607.1310, establishing eight waste collection areas and authorizing bids for exclusive hauler contracts.
- In 2008 the County awarded contracts to haulers to collect waste in eight areas; residents had independent contracts with these haulers and the County did not pay funds for collection.
- In November 2008 the County Council enacted ordinance 23,795 prohibiting non-selected haulers from operating within the areas, with penalties for violations.
- In September 2009 Marquis and Armbruster, later joined by Weber, filed a class action challenging the program as violating §260.247 and §2.180.24 of the St. Louis County Charter.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim; the matter proceeded to appellate review on the same asserted grounds.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding the County did not violate the charter, the appellants lacked standing to challenge §260.247, and their MPA claim was derivative of the voidness argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County violated §2.180.24 by creating districts without a voter vote | Weber/Marquis/Armbruster argue districts require a vote under §2.180.24. | County contends primary activity is not a taxed/fee-raising district; no voter approval needed. | No vote required; no funds raised by the County through taxes/assessments for trash. |
| Whether appellants have standing to challenge §260.247 compliance | Appellants have direct/taxpayer standing to challenge notice requirements. | Appellants lack a legally cognizable interest and taxpayer standing under §260.247. | Appellants lack standing to challenge §260.247. |
| Whether the MPA claim survives when based on void ordinances | MPA violations occurred due to purportedly illegal ordinances. | Ordinances not illegal; MPA claim derivatively fails. | MPA claim dismissed as derivative of alleged voidness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. American Eagle Waste Indust. v. St. Louis County, 272 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. App. 2008) (County authorized to enter trash collection business)
- Eastern Missouri Laborers’ Dist. Council v. St. Louis County, 781 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. banc 1989) (taxpayer standing requires direct pecuniary loss or public expenditure)
- Missouri State Medical Ass’n v. State, 256 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. banc 2008) (zone-of-interests standing and protectable interest principles)
- Harrison v. Monroe County, 716 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. banc 1986) (requirement of personal stake in the outcome)
- Duvall v. Coordinating Bd. for Higher Educ., 873 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. App. 1994) (taxpayer standing limitations for challenges to governmental action)
- Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 540 (Mo. banc 2003) (standing analysis across claims; some claims may have different standing)
- Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard of review for dismissals under Rule 75.06; de novo review)