Amick v. Dir. of Revenue

10 Citing cases

  1. Cosby v. Treasurer of State

    579 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. 2019)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that "[w]hen the legislature provides a statutory definition, it supersedes the commonly accepted dictionary or judicial definition and is binding on the courts."

    This Court applies a two-step analysis for equal protection violation claims. Amick v. Dir. of Revenue , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014). A court first determines whether the classification at issue involves a suspect class, such as race or gender, or whether a fundamental right is at issue. Id. "If there is no suspect classification or fundamental right at issue, a court will apply rational-basis review to determine whether the challenged law is rationally related to some legitimate end."

  2. Labrayere v. Bohr Farms, LLC

    458 S.W.3d 319 (Mo. 2015)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision

    There are two steps to an equal protection analysis. Amick v. Director of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014). The first step requires a court to identify the classification at issue to ascertain the appropriate level of scrutiny.

  3. Eivins v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.

    695 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    [23, 24] We apply a two-step analysis to equal protection violation claims. Cosby v. Treasurer of State, 579 S.W.3d 202, 209 (Mo. banc 2019) (citing Amick v. Dir. of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014)). A court first determines whether the classification at issue involves a suspect class, such as race or gender, or whether a fundamental right is at issue.

  4. Eivins v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.

    No. WD86435 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024)

    We apply a two-step analysis to equal protection violation claims. Cosby v. Treasurer of State, 579 S.W.3d 202, 209 (Mo. banc 2019) (citing Amick v. Dir. of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014)). A court first determines whether the classification at issue involves a suspect class, such as race or gender, or whether a fundamental right is at issue.

  5. Hill v. Mo. Dep't of Conservation

    No. ED105042 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017)

    If not, we apply a rational basis review "to determine whether the challenged law is rationally related to some legitimate end." Amick v. Dir. of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014). The second step requires us to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to the challenged regulation.

  6. Mo. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. Mo. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations

    623 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    This Court applies a two-step analysis for equal protection violation claims. Amick v. Dir. of Revenue , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014). A court must first determine whether a fundamental right is at issue. If there is no fundamental right at issue, "a court will apply a rational-basis review to determine whether the challenged law is rationally related to some legitimate end."

  7. Dieser v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr.

    498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. 2016)   Cited 44 times
    Stating post-judgment interest has never been assessed by a jury at common law

    “If there is no suspect classification or fundamental right at issue, a court will apply rational-basis review to determine whether the challenged law is rationally related to some legitimate end.” Amick v. Dir. of Revenue , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo.banc 2014). Mr. Dieser concedes that victims of medical negligence are not a suspect class.

  8. Prime HealthCare Services-Kansas City, LLC v. State, Dep't of Health & Senior Servs.

    653 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The party challenging the constitutionality of a regulation bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of validity. Id. at 515 ; Amick v. Dir. of Revenue , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014).

  9. Sarcoxie Nursery Cultivation Ctr. v. Williams

    649 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The party challenging the regulation bears the burden of "overcom[ing] this presumption [of validity] by a ‘clear showing of arbitrariness and irrationality.’ " Amick v. Dir. of Revenue , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. 2014) (quoting Foster v. St. Louis County , 239 S.W.3d 599, 602 (Mo. 2007) ); seeMiss Kitty's Saloon, Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Revenue , 41 S.W.3d 466, 467 (Mo. 2001) (requiring challenge to show legal provision "does not rest upon any reasonable basis and is purely arbitrary"). Regulations are arbitrary and capricious only where they are based on "willful and unreasoning action, without consideration of and in disregard of the facts and circumstances[.]" Psychiatric Healthcare Corp. of Mo. v. Dep't of Social Servs. , 100 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ; Barry Serv. Agency v. Manning , 891 S.W.2d 882, 892 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (finding an agency has acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it "completely fails to consider an important aspect or factor of the issue" before promulgating rules (citation omitted)).

  10. Hill v. Ashcroft

    526 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Finding summary statement insufficient where it failed to describe "an important and fundamental part" of the initiative

    Louis asks us to couple this dicta to the general proposition that challenges to "fundamental rights" are subject to strict scrutiny. See, e.g.Amick v. Dir. of Rev. , 428 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. banc 2014) ("If the challenged law ... curtails the exercise of a fundamental right, then strict scrutiny applies"). First, it is important to stress that the language in Kuehner is merely dicta.