*1 927, Corp., Const. 460 U.S. S.Ct. (1983).
L.Ed.2d 765 We have no occasion plaintiff complied
to decide has whether the procedural requirements,
with the federal the defendant has other defen- whether
sive matters. Those issues are for the trial
court to resolve on remand.
The order of dismissal is reversed proceed-
the case is remanded for further
ings opinion. inconsistent with this
All concur. GREGORY, Jr., al., Ellis et
Honorable
Plaintiffs-Respondents, al., CORRIGAN,
Honorable William et
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 66614. Missouri,
Supreme Court
En Banc. 26, 1985.
Feb.
841 court, of the associate circuit so adoption of participate did not these two rule local amendments. 20, 1984, July twelve thirteen On of the Twenty-first of suit, naming Judicial instituted this Circuit twenty as defendants thirteen plaintiffs sought The judges of circuit. rules the two declarations that amended Vitale, McCalpin, F. Wm. Michael A. St. enjoin They sought also were invalid. to Louis, defendants-appellants. for enforcement of the new rules. Louis, Kimbrell, plain- Alan G. St. for cause, judges moved for dismissal of the tiffs-respondents. their The trial but motion was overruled. temporary court a motion sustained for PER CURIAM. injunctive subsequently and ruled in relief dispute This case arises out of a within validity to plaintiffs favor of the as Twenty-first concerning Judicial Circuit rule the local court amendments. We validity local rules court. At issue is granted expedited review. local court of two circuit’s rules. Court, appeal On to this the circuit by reached virtue of an has this Court challenge judges initially as error the trial appeal declaratory judgment by from a a on a court’s to dismiss the case refusal by special judge appointed trial this Court jurisdictional Defendants assert basis. to hear the case. The trial found presented that this should have been issue rules to be null and both void. We affirm in the first instance Supreme to the Court finding part part, and reverse one by petition a review. for rules the two valid. present in disputed adopted case by a We note that were validity of the and majority of the circuit in an constitution en banc volves Thus, arguably, this meeting Twenty-first Judicial statutes this state. Circuit Supreme 100.1.1(4)1 ex June Local Rule case falls within the Court’s on 1984. jurisdiction, pursuant to presiding judge appellate clusive limits candidates for to Const, (as amended). Fur those whose nominations are seconded a Mo. ther, trial is one which the majority this case 100.1.2(3)2 order of this Court appointed vests in cer- was powers, we now Among supervisory under our powers. these tain administrative clerks, findings irre assign jurisdiction to review his authority to division take are the spective procedural avenue which the circuit clerk to establish an office direct In need for has been followed. view of the the maintenance of files and this_ operation judicial economy, we will not dismiss of the traffic control transfer permit 'plaintiffs to merely cause assignments for case offices other action some 'institute another By reason of Mo. clerk. means, re- particularly parties when both judges make the only circuit rules. (Election) assign personnel, 100.1.1(4): clerical not includ- At the elec- Local Rule Judge ap- meeting ing any and each Asso- division clerk or clerk each Circuit chief tion Division, Judge Judge entitled to one shall be offer pointed by ciate Circuit of the Probate Presiding Judge Judge Clerk, of the Circuit. Circuit and the Circuit Clerk the Circuit However, shall be deemed nomi- no candidate appropriate at loca- or offices establish an office until his or her nomination seconded nated Building to maintain tions the Courts Judges present majority by voting of the Circuit files, except responsibility for all court meeting. said at Division, op- assigned to the Probate those under Rule erate control offices established (Duties 100.1.2(3): Presiding Local Rule Divisions. for the Associate Circuit herein Judge Presiding Judge) The shall have the au- incorpo- recognize separate entities and quest by this Court. We abolished review and direct that it would be better that into the circuit as divisions rated disputes presented future of this sort be courts. Mo. the first instance to the Court and 27.2(a),(b) (1945, as amended them this Court consider administra- amendments did not fashion constitutional *3 tively supervisory powers.3 under its Instead, for- circuit courts. the associate the magistrates enveloped were into mer disposing of of this In the merits circuit to circuit as associate case, necessary to deter it is for this Court particular of the assigned to be disputed comport mine whether the Therefore, the consti- when circuit court. applicable statutory constitutional or authority presid- the tution refers to Appellants argued provisions. ing judge the circuit court and its § § over 478.240.2, V, 15.3 and Mo. Const. art. divisions, referring to unequivocally it is 1978, the enactment and RSMo authorize judges. circuit of the associate 100.1.2(3). tribunals We implementation of Rule agree. Local disputed counter that the Plaintiffs stated, Rule 100.1.- previously
As other cannot be valid since in 2(3) provision which vests is the amended allegedly preserve provisions constitutional authority to more presiding judge the the in associate authority administrative workings effectively administer instance, plaintiffs cite judges. For circuit Const, person- by assigning clerical § circuit court 27.3, reads, V, in art. which Mo. office, nel, establishing filing a centralized filing procedure, part, “practice, that the supervision transferring the of of causes heard fees and administration powers coin- offices. These traffic control jurisdic- circuit within V, forth in Article cide with those set probate magistrate and of former tion § presiding states that which the same as and remain courts shall be “general authori- judge has administrative argument This the court abolished.” divisions,” subject, ty court and its over the however, flawed, quot- by the fact that authority course, making of to the rule of language lifted from a subsec- ed has been Const, V, judges under Mo. types of cases over outlines the tion which § § Similarly, 15.1. 478.240.2 states preside. can circuit which associate “to prerogative has the any- personnel assign any judicial or court used that words It is manifest provisions court.” These in the where provisions must be viewed constitutional the intent that the clearly reflect Bond, 650 S.W.2d Buechner v. context. control, have administrative is to 1983). 611, (Mo. Article 613 When banc making authority rule subject to the again entirety, it becomes read in its 27.3 is just judges, preserving were that the framers evident over the judges, but business for the associate Any court, including the divisions. entire rights of liti authority adjudicate the runs reading these enactments of other magistrate in the gants, as had been done sought objective primary to the counter the drafters note that courts. We also to the 1976 amendments by the achieved associ state that the did not this subsection Constitution. Missouri the same to have ate circuit were magis former powers as the administrative judicial arti- amendments The 1976 instead, refers, provision trates. system consist- tier court a three cle create ” (emphasis add causes “administration Court, Ap- Courts ing of the ed). used in Since all words Mo. constitutional Courts. the Circuit peals, and pur some presumed are to have 1976). provisions Pro- (1945, as amended Transportation pose, Highways & municipal courts are State bate, magistrate and processes of this However, regular judicial in matters intended to procedure is not application of kind. upon preclude impinge Revenue, por- judges. Com’n v. Director conflicts with rule (Mo. 1984); tion of the which reads that: constitution banc Buechner Bond, supra, interpret we must this lan- and associate guage powers as a limitation on the each circuit shall select secret ballot a their number to serve presiding judge. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ reading (1945, as amended Mo. of this constitutional subsection would not be more The constitution could place Y, it in conflict directly with Article circuit and explicit requiring that both specifically 15.3 which bestows judges participate presiding judge general au presiding judge. Because the election Since over the divisions. we are to present amended local in its form ef- rule attempt provisions to harmonize all fectively this constitutional di- circumvents *4 constitution, City State ex. Martin inf. rective and is to a disenfran- tantamount (Mo. Independence, chisement, hereby it is declared invalid. 1974), plaintiffs’ the contentions in re this holding opinion Although the of this gard rejected. must be recognize is to that the circuit Likewise, persuaded are not Ar- we that judges constitutionally are authorized to 27.10(a) statutory ticle and various participate process in for election of the “a provisions preclude presiding judge the judge presiding to serve as ... reassigning division clerks their judge,” adoption and we emphasize that deputies prerogative of supervision. to the circuit clerk’s local rules of is the the court the circuit. Mo. states only state constitution that the §Y, this manifest: makes deputies and “selection” of the clerk respective may continue of the circuit same make rules circuit not inconsist- practice manner as had been the in for the supreme ent rules of the court. magistrate Nothing the courts. with the in the con- selected, stitution dictates that once the Therefore, judge pos- presiding while the supervision clerks must remain under the powers, variety of in- sesses a substantial judge. the associate cluding referred to in previously those by opinion, adopted majority local Certainly, if the division clerks remained of the circuit direct how those supervision under the cir- by pre- powers implemented are to the be concept cuit judges, the of a unified court Thus, rule, siding judge. by not in- local undermined. Because it would be constitution, Supreme consistent with the is our that each section of the view statutes, the circuit court Court rule or article must be construed consistent may provide, alia, procedures for inter system, concept with the of a unified court cases, types docketing handling of in this instance cannot term “selection” circuit, court within the committees meaning. interpreted beyond its literal be accounts, administrative, budgetary, contrary To that there the extent exist personnel workings of the en- records and those must statutory provisions, statutes divisions, including its tire court and give mandates of constitution. way to follows, judges. the associate circuit course, in exercis- that the respect to Local 100.1.- With ing must powers the administrative abide 1(4),however, agree with the we trial by adopted by the local court rules as provi This is rule is invalid. pre states that candidates for sion which part in judgment must receive a second to their is affirmed siding part.4 majority of reversed in from a nomination Pratt, assigned recognizes, appreciation, Stephen was with Honorable R. who Court handling splendid of a difficult case RENDLEN, C.J., HIGGINS, GUNN, in ary Const, placed Court. Mo. BILLINGS, V, appeals BLACKMAR 4. Each court of and DONNEL- LY, JJ., general supervisory control over concur. exercises statutory circuit courts within their dis WELLIVER, J., part concurs and dis- cer trict. The circuit courts exercise Id. part separate opinion sents in filed. supervisory over the divisions tain controls WELLIVER, Justice, concurring part statutory within their districts. Art. dissenting part. All exercise their administrative through functions their chief administra principal opinion I concur in all of the officer, in all other instances is tive who except part thereof that holds majority elected vote 100.1.1(4) Court Rule invalid rea- serving question. on the court being contrary son of to Mo. majority is neither invalid 15.3. Rule read as the reads Section face, regardless it, judges to- permits nor unconstitutional on its the associate circuit potential being gether judges, unconstitutional in dissident circuit its they pass any judge deem application. its unacceptable and to elect the underlying pre- agree I cannot with the choice. This is control from of their majority opinion power mise of the up top from the down. the bottom and not promulgate and to the manifest It is in direct contradiction adopt rules will itself *5 destroys intent of Art. V as a whole. This Twenty- problems plaguing the solve the majority of the circuit ability Rulemaking power First Judicial Circuit. judges acting through their chief adminis- right officer to without the to select the supervisory con- to exercise trative officer may power no at administer the rules component trol over the Striking Rule 100.1.- all. down Local Court circuit court. 1(4) a situation which has the same leaves mer- Art. Y maneuvering, Clearly, this contradiction potential political faction- voters, a obstruction, alism, its future reconsideration and administrative years. take several Twenty- process well plagued the which that has breakdown meantime, having the con- identified during past or In the First two Judicial Circuit duty tradiction, to har- our courts have the years. more existing of the Consti- sections monize brings sharp principal opinion into The tution, Staley done. v. Mis- if such can be § 1, appears con fact that 15.3 focus the Revenue, souri Director step the unified trary to and out of with (Mo. banc contemplated and established Read, sections harmony with the other provisions of Art. V. by the other § grant more than 15.3 does no adopted in 1976 con of Art. article revised right and judges top to the associate integrated from templates judiciary a input in the participate and have power purpose of efficient to bottom for the cir- presiding judge of judicial personnel and selection use of economical long certainly true so as This is accomplishing cuit court. The method resources. judges are nominated more circuit two or business purpose is as clear as this judges in accordance with by the circuit su organizational chart. General military judges if I that judici rule.2 am aware entire control over the pervision and general au- ing have acting special as Court of task its divisions.” over the court and involving peers. controversy his in this harmonizing noteworthy the sec- "The circuit read as follows: 1. Section 15.3 tions, judges have reserved judges circuit shall se- in each judges ability pass associate circuit judge from their ballot a circuit lect secret more of those nominated one or judge. presid- serve as number to consideration, power now presented for their a candidate, only single should nominate it effect, argued had, they
could be par-
deprived
ticipation process. election
question is not now before us. 100.1.1(4)
Nothing on the face of Rule general
appears to contradict the intent purpose specific of Art. V or the word- Nothing requires
ing of 15.3. equal rights to nominate who con-
among the circuit shall be presiding judge. as
sidered for election 100.1.1(4) more
Rule could have been
artfully drafted to harmonize 15.3 with of Art.
the remainder V.
This is no time for half solutions. adopted by approval.
merits our Missouri,
STATE
Plaintiff-Respondent, *6 FRANKS, Leon
Mikel
Defendant-Appellant.
No. Appeals, Court of
Missouri District,
Eastern Eight.
Division 30, 1984.
Oct. Rehearing Transfer and/or
Motion
Supreme Court Denied 13, 1985.
Feb.
Application to Transfer Denied
April practice.
compatible accepted Missouri