Court Opinion

ID: 9675475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:55:02.370593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.863434
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
There is little I can add on the law to what was said in the principal opinion in O’Dell v. School District of Independence, 521 S.W.2d 403 (banc 1975). I am not persuaded that O’Dell was wrong on the law. But the scholars will resolve that question. There is something more important to be said in this case.
Until today we enjoyed a system of government in Missouri in which the judicial department did not presume to legislate public policy. Historically, the legislative department in Missouri has represented “its polity and its will * * Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 21, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1889). Today’s decision represents a blatant exercise of the legislative function by judges. It violates the letter and spirit of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Missouri.
The first section of our Bill of Rights (Mo.Const. Art. I, § 1) proclaims:
“That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
In O’Dell, this constitutional relationship between the people and their government was given practical recognition as follows (521 S.W.2d at 407):
“ * * * In Missouri, the people are sovereign. The immunity is theirs. By adoption of our Constitution, the people of Missouri assented to be governed and established the terms of the grant. They authorized the creation of governmental entities for the performance of tasks considered essential to their general welfare. In our view, in order that such entities remain viable, it must be recognized that the immunity of the sovereign people must pass to those governmental entities which serve the public interest.”
I regret that this traditional Missouri concept has been emasculated today by judicial edict.
I do not argue that this Court is without power to change the law in this State. I do argue that the power should be exercised with some evidence of restraint. I merely submit that the question of abolishing the immunity of the sovereign people is of fundamental importance to our form of government. It should have been decided by the people or by their elected representatives and not by this Court.
I respectfully dissent.