Court Opinion

ID: 9761796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:54:43.75631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:26.471629
License: Public Domain

EAGER, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
The principal opinion finds it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of Sections 416.420 and 416.440, although that question-was raised in the case. As a practical matter, it would seem to assume the constitutionality of the Act as a whole, though not necessarily of §§ 416.420 and 416.440. Borden Company v. Thomason et al., Mo., 353 S.W.2d 735. I recognize the principle that constitutional questions are ordinarily not decided unless it is necessary to do so ; with that in mind, I merely wish to reaffirm my previous views, as expressed in my dissent in Borden, supra, at a time when the constitutionality of the whole Act was directly in question. My view then and now was and is that the Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, and consequently that all Rules promulgated thereunder would necessarily fall. I have seen no reason to depart from those views as previously expressed.