Court Opinion

ID: 9679855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:11:15.709709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:21.818197
License: Public Domain

MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the plurality opinion’s conclusions that most of this lawsuit is nonjus-ticiable. The claims strike me as hypothetical, not real, because of the absence of a real claimant with a real injury who claims his or her rights and remedies have been impaired unconstitutionally by the 2005 legislation.
The one claim on which this Court grants relief — for declaratory judgment— strikes me as about as hypothetical as the rest of the claims. A declaratory judgment action, like any lawsuit regardless of the relief sought, requires a real controversy between real parties where the facts and law can be adjudicated and a final judgment rendered. U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2; State ex rel. State Bd. of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798, 244 S.W.2d 75, 79 (1951).1 An advisory opinion — which *681courts wisely avoid — seeks advice about situations that may not have occurred yet.2
The declaratory judgment the Court enters in this case seems inarguable as an abstract principle of law. As I understand it, the declaratory judgment is: if a worker is injured and the worker is precluded from recovery under the workers’ compensation law, the injured worker can pursue a tort remedy in court.3
Just how and whether that declaration of law applies in any given case depends on the facts of the case presented. When there is such a case, we may find out. In the meantime, in the present appeal, we have done no damage to the law.4

. State ex rel. State Bd. of Mediation v. Pigg explains the case or controversy requirement under Missouri law: “It is well settled that constitutional questions will not be determined, unless their determination is essential to a proper determination of the case presented. We have no authority to give advisory opinions on constitutional questions affecting, or which may affect, the rights of persons who are not parties to the action. Until such persons are in court and the issues are directly presented and necessarily involved such issues will not be decided.” 362 Mo. 798, 244 S.W.2d 75, 79 (internal citations omitted). See also City of Springfield v. Sprint Spectrum, 203 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc 2006); *681Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). See also, Robert J. Pushaw, Jr., Why the Supreme Court Never Gets Any “Dear John" Letters: Advisory Opinions in Historical Perspective, 87 G EO. L.J. 473 (1998) (reviewing Stewart Jay, Most Humble Servants: The Advisory Role of Early Judges (1997)).

.Appellate courts, like circuit courts, lack authority to issue advisory opinions on matters of law that are not part of a live case or controversy. 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). See also Mo. Const, art. V, § 3 (appellate jurisdiction to hear "cases”) and § 14 (circuit court jurisdiction over all cases and tnatters, civil and criminal). While the Missouri Constitution speaks of “cases and matters," there never has been any indication that the additional words would authorize anything other than a true case or controversy between parties with real interests in the outcome.

. Or, put another way: if a person’s injury occurs on the job, the claimant cannot sue die employer if a remedy is available in the workers’ compensation law. State ex rel. MW Builders, Inc. v. Midkiff, 222 S.W.3d 267, 270 (Mo. banc 2007) (explaining that "the Workers’ Compensation Law supplants the common law in determining remedies for on-the-job injuries.").

. I join the plurality opinion's apology for the delay in this case. This Court has a longstanding tradition of deciding its cases promptly. I believe the current case is an aberration. I am hopeful that such delay will not occur again. See generally, Standards for Appellate Courts, "Time Standards for Judicial Functions,” Sec. 355 (American Bar Assn. 1994) (The ABA standards are not binding but do express generally accepted norms for the conduct of appellate courts.).