Court Opinion

ID: 9642657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:05:26.520923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.539786
License: Public Domain

RONNIE L. WHITE, Chief Justice,
concurring.
1 concur in the principal opinion. I write separately only to object to the obi-ter dicta suggestions offered to the legislature by our respected colleague, Judge Price, in his concurrence. There is no question that the courts are the final arbiters of the law and that the judiciary may not shirk their duty to interpret the law.1 Coupled with this noble pursuit, however, is the unqualified need and long-standing tradition of exercising judicial restraint and avoiding the political thicket to serve the public interest of “allowing the political process to function free from judicial supervision.” 2
Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions on matters of law that are not part of a live case or controversy and do not decide nonexistent issues.3 “Courts having a proper respect for the constitutional divisions of state power cannot invade the province of another coequal branch of the government.”4 “It is not the Court’s province to question the wisdom, social desirability or economic policy underlying a statute as these are matters for the legislature’s determination.” 5

. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

. Colegrove v. Green 328 U.S. 549, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946); O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 5, 92 S.Ct. 2718, 34 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); State ex rel. Holland v. Moran, 865 S.W.2d 827, 832 (Mo.App.1993).

. Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee Dist, Platte County, Missouri v. Missouri American Water Co., 117 S.W.3d 140, 153 (Mo.App.2003); State ex rel. Mathewson v. Board of Election Com’rs of St. Louis County, 841 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo. banc 1992).

. Lutman v. American Shoe Mach. Co. 151 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Mo.App.1941)(overruled on other grounds).

. Greenlee v. Dukes Plastering Service, 75 S.W.3d 273, 277 (Mo. banc 2002).