Court Opinion

ID: 9661558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:42:49.462147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:30.423210
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
dissenting.
The person who sues out a temporary injunction is unwilling to let the law take its normal course of decision following a full hearing. It is appropriate, then, that there be a response in damages if the temporary injunction turns out to be improvident. Rule 92.09, requiring an injunction bond, was drafted to require and to secure the payment of appropriate damages including attorney’s fees. This rule was based on statutory antecedents construed in Uhrig v. City of St Louis, 47 Mo. 528 (1871). The bond requirement may also impel the plaintiff to weigh carefully the decision to seek a temporary injunction.
At the time Uhrig was decided most public law officers worked on a part-time basis and were permitted to supplement their salaries through private practice. The law officer’s first duty was to perform the legal work of the employing entity. It is understandable, in this context, that the Uhrig court perceived no ascertainable damages.
The situation is wholly different as to the County Counselor’s Office in St. Louis County. The Counselor and assistants work full time. If required to defend improvident injunction actions, other work is necessarily affected. The services do not come free to the taxpayers. If the burdens increase, more assistants must be added.
If allowances are not made for the services of public legal officers, there will be a temptation to employ outside counsel, with possible inefficiencies and greater expense to the public.
I would not necessarily allow fees based on what a private lawyer would charge, if the services are rendered by a public legal officer, but would permit an allowance based on reasonable calculation of the attorney’s salary and office overhead. I would therefore reverse and remand for redetermination of the award to St. Louis County.