Court Opinion

ID: 9759418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:15:31.736188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:07.219999
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Part Y of the majority opinion. It recognizes that an action brought under 42 U.S.C.A., § 1983 is cognizable in Missouri state courts. I dissent to the remainder of the opinion.
As recognized in the majority opinion, a resolution of the issues in this case is “not an ‘easy task’ because the courts are committed to both educational opportunity for all and to the encouragement of private charitable trusts.” However, despite the difficulty of the issues and the importance of facts for a proper resolution of the issues, the majority proceeds to find the facts and to determine the issues without affording plaintiff an opportunity to present the facts in evidence at a trial.
In Boyer v. Guidicy Marble, Terrazzo & Tile Co., 246 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Mo.1952), this Court said:
“It is important to be mindful of the fact that we here consider only the question of whether plaintiff’s amended petition, when its averments are accorded every reasonable and fair intendment, states a claim which can call for the invocation of the principles of substantive law which may entitle plaintiff to relief.
In Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 249, 250, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1693, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), the plaintiffs had filed a complaint seeking damages against the President of Kent State University and other government officials. The defendants claimed immunity. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis of the allegations of the complaint and affidavits filed by defendants. The United States Supreme Court reversed and said:
“These cases, in their present posture, present no occasion for a definitive exploration of the scope of immunity available to state executive officials nor, because of the absence of a factual record, do they permit a determination as to the applicability of the foregoing principles to the respondents here. .
******
“The documents properly before the District Court at this early pleading stage specifically placed in issue whether the Governor and his subordinate officers were acting within the scope of their duties under the Constitution and laws of Ohio; whether they acted within the range of discretion permitted the holders of such office under Ohio law and whether they acted in good faith both in proclaiming an emergency and as to the actions taken to cope with the emergency so declared. Similarly, the complaints place directly in issue whether the lesser officers and enlisted personnel of the Guard acted in good-faith obedience to the orders of their superiors. Further proceedings, either by way of summary judgment or by trial on the merits, are required. The complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than is possible on a motion to dismiss a complaint.
*323“We intimate no evaluation whatever as to the merits of the petitioners’ claims or as to whether it will be possible to support them by proof. We hold only that, on the allegations of their respective complaints, they were entitled to have them judicially resolved.”
In my opinion, plaintiff is entitled to have “judicially resolved” the issues (1) whether state action is involved in this case, and (2) whether the doctrine of deviation or the cy pres doctrine should be applied here. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for trial.