Opinion ID: 2276545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review and principles governing review of the constitutionality of statutes

Text: This Court's review on an appeal from summary judgment is essentially de novo.  ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Summary judgment is proper only if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04(c)(6). This Court will review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered and accords the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp., 854 S.W.2d at 376. `Constitutional challenges to the validity of any alleged right or defense asserted by a party to an action must be raised at the earliest opportunity consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure.' State ex rel. Houska v. Dickhaner, 323 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Mo. banc 2010), quoting, Litzinger v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 356 S.W.2d 81, 88 (Mo. banc 1962). A statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be invalidated unless it clearly and undoubtedly violates some constitutional provision and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution. State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo. banc 2009). When evaluating the constitutional validity of a statute, [t]his Court will `resolve all doubt in favor of the act's validity' and `may make every reasonable intendment to sustain the constitutionality of the statute.' Reproductive Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood v. Nixon, 185 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo. banc 2006), quoting Westin Crown Plaza Hotel v. King, 664 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo. banc 1984).