Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Appellant v. City of Oregon, Billy P. Sharp, County Collector and Sue S. Kneale, County Clerk, Respondents.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Appellant v. City of Oregon, Billy P. Sharp, County Collector and Sue S. Kneale, County Clerk, Respondents. Case Number: WD59550 Handdown Date: 06/18/2002 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Holt County, Hon. John C. Andrews Counsel for Appellant: Christie Kincannon Counsel for Respondent: Robert R. Shepherd Opinion Summary: During 2000, the city of Oregon levied a general revenue tax of $1 per $100 of assessed valuation. Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon sued, pursuant to authority granted to him by section 137.073.6, RSMo 2000, asking the circuit court to determine that the tax was unlawful and to enjoin the city from collecting it. The court denied Nixon's petition for injunctive relief, and he appeals. DISMISSED. Division holds: The Supreme Court of Missouri held in Home Builders Association of Greater St. Louis v. Missouri, No. SC83863 (May 28, 2002), that Senate Bill 894, the legislation creating section 137.073, is unconstitutional because it violates Mo. Const. art. III, section 23 (1945), in that its subject was not expressed clearly in its title. Because SB 894 is unconstitutional, it necessarily follows that any legislation established by SB 894 is void. SB 894 created section 137.073, which grants to the attorney general authority to bring this suit against Oregon; therefore, having been created by an unconstitutional measure, section 137.073 is void. Hence, we dismiss Nixon's appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: Paul M. Spinden, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Breckenridge and Hardwick, J.J., concur. Opinion:

During 2000, the City of Oregon levied a general revenue tax of $1 per $100 of assessed valuation. Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon sued, pursuant to authority granted to him by section 137.073.6, RSMo 2000, asking the circuit court to determine that the tax was unlawful and to enjoin the city from collecting it. The circuit court denied Nixon's petition for injunctive relief, and he appeals. Oregon contends that Senate Bill 894, the legislation creating section 137.073, is unconstitutional because it violates Mo. Const. art. III, section 23 (1945), in that it did not have a single subject and its subject was not expressed clearly in its title. Heeding the Supreme Court's instruction in Home Builders Association of Greater St. Louis v. Missouri, SC83863 (May 28, 2002), we concur with Oregon's argument and dismiss Nixon's appeal. In Home Builders Association, the Supreme Court noted that Mo. Const. art. III, section 23, requires that every bill enacted by the General Assembly must contain no more than one subject that is expressed clearly in the bill's title. Slip op. at 3. If a bill violates this so-called clear title requirement, the court said that it was bound to invalidate the legislation. Id. at 4. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "relating to property ownership" in SB 894's title could refer to almost any legislation the general assembly passed; therefore, the title failed to give notice of the bill's actual content or subject matter in violation of the clear title requirement. Id. at 6. The court said that, because the title was overly broad, it could not strike only portions of the bill, and, therefore, it invalidated the entire bill. Id. at 10. Because the Supreme Court declared SB 894 unconstitutional, it necessarily follows that any legislation established by SB 894 is void. See State ex rel. Miller v. O'Malley, 117 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo. banc 1938). SB 894 created section 137.073, which grants to the attorney general authority to bring this suit against Oregon; therefore, having been created by an unconstitutional measure, section 137.073 is void.(FN1) Hence, we dismiss Nixon's appeal. Footnotes: FN1.Because SB 894 violates the clear title requirement, we need not address Oregon's contention that the bill is unconstitutional because it did not have a single subject. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.