Court Opinion

ID: 9778099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:32:33.448976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.755019
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the exposition of the legal principles governing the issuance of original remedial writs (Mo. Const., Art. Y, § 4.1), but see no reason to perpetuate the unwise and overexpansive pronouncements of State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. banc 1983). I adhere to the views expressed in my Concurring Opinion in that case. Missouri courts, over the years, have exercised discretion in issuing original remedial writs, when persuaded that no other remedy is adequate. In so doing they have acted in accord with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Morasch ignored history and precedent, and has been conveniently overlooked in numerous subsequent decisions.1 The time has come to abandon the pretext that prohibition is not available unless there is a true issue of jurisdiction and to state frankly that the broad pronouncements of Morasch are unauthoritative.
I initially questioned the use of a writ in this ease to interrupt an ongoing administrative proceeding. Even though we have the authority to do so, we are never compelled to issue a writ. We have been properly reluctant to interrupt pending cases. One reason is that the case may be disposed of in such a way that the issue posed by the request for writ need not be decided. Another reason is the delay factor. But the majority is persuaded that the Human *866Rights Commission has consistently made an assumption which is legally erroneous and that its assumption may jeopardize pending cases. These circumstances justify the issuance of the absolute rule.
This Court does not tell the Commission how it should exercise its authority over the complainant as a party. Nor do we hold forth on the alternative to requiring the defendant to appear for a pre-hearing deposition.2 Inasmuch as an absolute rule is so limited, I concur.

. See, e.g. State ex rel. General Electric Co. v. Gaertner, 666 S.W.2d 764 (Mo. banc 1984) (Blackmar, J., concurring); State ex rel. Missouri Department of Agriculture v. McHenry, 687 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 1985); State ex rel. Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1986).

. Kingsley v. Kingsley, 601 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.App.1980); State ex rel. Charterbank Springfield, N.A. v. Donegan, 658 S.W.2d 919 (Mo.App.1983).