Court Opinion

ID: 9767992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:37:49.424928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.410636
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in the views expressed in Judge Donnelly’s dissent. I write only to under*116score how extraordinary is the principal opinion’s departure from established law.
Although the principal opinion purports to give effect to the intent of the legislature, it wholly ignores the fundamental rule of construction, adhered to in this state for more than a century, that “where the Legislature, after a statute has received a settled judicial construction, reenacts or carries forward without change, or reincorporates the exact language theretofore construed, it is to be presumed that it knew of and adopted the judicial construction previously given to the statute.” Roy F. Stamm Electric Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 350 Mo. 1178, 1184, 171 S.W.2d 580, 583 (banc 1943). See also Messick v. Grainger, 356 Mo. 1227, 1232, 205 S.W.2d 739, 741-42 (1947); Jacoby v. Missouri Valley Drainage District, 349 Mo. 818, 833, 163 S.W.2d 930, 939 (banc 1942); State ex rel. Steed v. Nolte, 345 Mo. 1103, 1108, 138 S.W.2d 1016, 1019 (banc 1940); State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haid, 332 Mo. 701, 705, 60 S.W.2d 41, 43 (1933); State ex inf. Gentry v. Meeker, 317 Mo. 719, 723, 296 S.W. 411, 412-13 (banc 1927); Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. 27, 34 (1884); Handlin v. Morgan County, 57 Mo. 114, 116 (1874). In the forty-five years following this Court’s decisions in State ex rel. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Smith, 342 Mo. 75, 111 S.W.2d 513 (banc 1938), and Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 342 Mo. 45, 111 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. banc 1938), which construed statutes identical in relevant respects to § 144.020(1)(3), RSMo 1978, the legislature has reenacted the contested language verbatim a total of ten times.1 Act of July 31, 1979, see. 1, § 144.020(1)(3), 1979 Mo.Laws 331, 334; Act of Aug. 1, 1975, sec. 1, § 144.020(1)(3), 1975-1976 Mo. Laws 202, 204; Act of May 26, 1972, sec. 1, § 144.020(1)(3), 1971-1972 Mo.Laws 736, 737; Act of July 1, 1965, sec. 1, § 144.-020(1)(3), 1965 Mo.Laws 261, 262; Act of Apr. 25, 1963, sec. 1, § 144.020(1)(3), 1963 Mo.Laws 195, 196; Act of July 7, 1947, sec. 1, § 11408(c), 1947 Mo.Laws (Vol. I) 546, 547; Act of Mar. 29,1946, sec. 1, § 11408(c), 1945 Mo.Laws 1865, 1869; Act of July 27, 1943, sec. 1, § 11408(c), 1943 Mo.Laws 1012, 1016; Act of Aug. 4, 1941, sec. A, § 11408(c), 1941 Mo.Laws 698, 702; Act of July 8, 1939, sec. A, § 2(c), 1939 Mo.Laws 855, 860. Because of the repeated reenactments of that very language for so long following this Court’s construction of it, “[t]he construction has ... become a part of the statute itself.” Ex parte Carey, 306 Mo. 287, 294, 267 S.W. 806, 808 (banc 1924). See also Murphy v. Wabash Railroad, 228 Mo. 56, 86, 128 S.W. 481, 487 (banc 1910). There is no justification for ignoring longstanding legislative history by overruling Smith and Kansas City Public Service Co. Any change thought necessary should be effected by the legislature and not by this Court.

. The contested language in § 144.020(1)(3), RSMo 1978, regards the sale of electricity to “domestic, commercial or industrial consumers.” That language is identical to that in the 1935 enactment. Act of June 5, 1935, § 2(c), 1935 Mo.Laws 411, 415. It differs slightly from that in the original 1934 enactment, which used the language “domestic commercial or industrial consumers” without the comma following the word “domestic.” Act of Jan. 15, 1934, § 2A(b), 1933-1934 Mo.Laws (Ex.Sess.) 155, 157. Although the meaning differs with the inclusion or exclusion of the comma, that difference is immaterial for purposes of this case. In Smith the Court considered the 1934 act but consistently included the comma when it referred to the statutory language. In Kansas City Public Service Co. the Court, on the basis of Smith, construed the 1935 act to mean the same as the 1934 act.