DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Ralls

5/25/1999

Support Enforcement with powers reserved exclusively by the constitution to the judicial department).


In the case of Bridges v. Hurd, this court looked at Section 478.266, RSMo 1978, which permitted the circuit court Judges of Jackson County to appoint a commissioner of the circuit court's probate division. 645 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Mo. App. 1983). The court concluded that "the commissioner possesses the powers and duties of a Judge only when his actions have been either approved or rejected by the probate division Judge." Id. Since a Judge neither rejected nor approved the judgment entered by the probate commissioner in Bridge v. Hurd, it was deemed to not be a final appealable judgment. Id. See also Clemans v. Mecantile Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 936 S.W.2d 889, 890 (Mo. App. 1997); Estate of Norman v. Norman, 792 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Mo. App. 1990).


Recently, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the issue of judicial determinations by family court commissioners. In the case of Slay v. Slay, the Court found that judgments signed by family court commissioners were not final appealable judgments, because such judgments were not "signed by a person selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by article V of the state constitution." 965 S.W.2d 845, 845 (Mo. banc 1998). Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Id. In the subsequent case of State ex rel. York v. Daugherty, the Court indicated that the Slay case did not declare that portion of the statute authorizing review by a circuit court unconstitutional. 969 S.W.2d 223, 225 (Mo. banc 1998).


We believe that the question of whether Section 478.466 is in conflict with Art. II, Section 1 and Art. V, Sections 1 and 25(a) of the Missouri Constitution is a "real and substantial" issue and, thus, we transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court.


Separate Opinion:


None






Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Missouri DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.