Opinion ID: 2334179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Petition Was Sufficient

Text: Neither the statutes nor the civil rules set standards for what a petition for review must contain. The fact pleading specified for civil cases by Rule 55.05 is inapplicable. Judicial review usually consists of questions of law, [8] as specified by section 536.140.2, which describes the scope of judicial review for cases such as this disciplinary matter: [T]he court's inquiry may extend to a determination of whether the action of the agency is in violation of constitutional provisions, is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law, is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial, is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or involves an abuse of discretion. Section 536.140.2(1) to (7). On judicial review, the court shall hear the case without a jury and shall hear it upon the petition and record filed.... Section 536.140.1. Bird's petition mirrors the language of section 536.140.2. Bird's petition seeks review of the findings of fact in the Final Order because it is in violation of constitutional provisions, is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, is not supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, was upon unlawful procedure, is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and involves an abuse of discretion. Although section 536.110 does not explicitly set forth the requirements for a sufficient petition, Bird's petition is sufficient to outline the issues for the reviewing court and the adverse party. See Citro v. City of Lee's Summit, 658 S.W.2d 86, 89 (Mo.App.1983). While a court may find it desirable for a petition to define precisely the issues to be reviewed, a precise definition of the issues is not required by statute or rule. In a proceeding such as this, the petition sometimes is written and filed before the full administrative record becomes available. The circuit court may require the party seeking review to specify the precise issues the party is raising. See, e.g., Rule 62.01. Or the circuit court may require the party seeking review to amend the petition with greater particularity. Cf., Rule 55.27(d). The petitioner seeking review will specify and explain the issues for the circuit court in the memoranda of law, briefs, or other written submissions required by the circuit court. Certainly in this case, the circuit court appeared to have no difficulty in rendering a cogent decision that dealt with the issues raised by the parties. [9] After the circuit court judgment is rendered, the court's decision can be appealed as in other civil cases. On such appeals, the appealing party sets forth the legal issues he wishes to raise in the points relied on section of the appellate brief as required by Rule 84.04(d). The appellate court, as noted, then reviews the decision of the AHC and the board, not the judgment of the circuit court. The circuit court's review is not completely irrelevant, however, because the circuit court proceeding undoubtedly shapes the issues for review in the appellate courts if there is an appeal. And, in many instances, the circuit review resolves matters so no appeal is taken. Bird's petition and other submissions provided the circuit court with a sufficient basis upon which to review the decision of the AHC and the board. Section 536.140.1. That is all that section 536.110 requires.