Opinion ID: 1525553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The question of our jurisdiction was raised in oral argument. We sense a degree of confusion in this case and others as to the scope of our initial appellate jurisdiction under Art. V, § 3, following the 1976 amendment. The pertinent language is as follows: The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity ... of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state, ... Earlier constitutional language about construction of the Constitution of the United States or this state has been completely eliminated, and the numerous decisions about the difference between construction and application of constitutional provisions are no longer of concern. The sole question is whether the validity of the statute is involved. Appellant's Point II distinctly draws the validity of Proposition One into question. The appellant argues as follows: If Proposition 1 is interpreted as a prohibition against recovery of prudent cancelled plant costs, denial of such recovery would deprive Appellant of its property without due process of law in violation of U.S. Const.Amend. XIV, Sec. 1, and Mo. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10. Appellant's Point III likewise argues that Proposition One, if interpreted as the Commission has interpreted it, violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [1] and also Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Missouri Constitution. Appellant argues as follows: If the Circuit Court's interpretation of Proposition 1 is correct, Appellant contends that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution Amend. XIV, Sec. 1, and the Missouri Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 2, to single out electric utilities for treatment different from that accorded telephone, gas, sewer or water companies in this state. Both of these points [2] clearly allege that Proposition One is constitutionally invalid if construed so as to prohibit the recovery of the cost of abandoned construction. It makes no difference that the appellant first argues that the Commission and the circuit court erred in the construction of Proposition One, so that this Court could decide the case in its favor without reaching the constitutional questions. A statute is to be construed so as to render it constitutional, if this is possible. [3] A court will avoid the decision of a constitutional question if the case can be fully determined without reaching it. [4] If our appellate jurisdiction properly attaches jurisdiction is not lost if the case is decided without reaching the constitutional issues, because our jurisdiction extends to all issues in the case. Appeals are not bifurcated under our practice. The dissent to the contrary notwithstanding, we perceive no stratagem on appellant's part to confer a jurisdiction on this Court which does not exist. Nor do we recognize, tacitly or otherwise, the lack of our jurisdiction. The appellant made a decision about points to be preserved for appeal. [5] It had no way of knowing which point or points the decision might turn on. The Court of Appeals was without power to decide some of the points properly preserved. We know of no precedent by which a case could be taken to the Court of Appeals for resolution of some issues and then transferred to this Court for a decision or other issues. The historic and sound rule is that the appeal is properly lodged in the court having jurisdiction over all issues in the case.