Gore v. Wochner

12 Citing cases

  1. City of Richmond v. Suddarth

    120 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    However, just as the reviewing trial court may exercise its discretion to extend the deadline for filing the record, Knapp v. Mo. Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys. , 738 S.W.2d 903, 910-11 (Mo.App. 1987), so it may, in its discretion, decide not to extend the time — that is, it may dismiss the suit. Bland v. City of Trenton , 618 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo.App. 1981); Gore v.Wachner , 558 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Mo.App. 1977). (The failure to file a record is akin to failure to prosecute, for which the trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a civil or criminal action.

  2. Jerry-Russell Bliss v. Hazardous Waste

    702 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. 1986)   Cited 39 times
    Affirming denial of hazardous waste license to a new corporation based upon prior conduct of the owners, despite the fact that the conduct occurred prior to both the passage of the relevant statute and the incorporation of the applicant entity

    The language of section 536.140.4 is not a mandate for the trial court to consider further evidence; it is permissive only. Eddington v. St. Francois Cty R-III Bd. of Ed., 564 S.W.2d 283 (Mo.App. 1978); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Petitioner had its opportunity to present its evidence at the hearing.

  3. Consumer Contact Co. v. State Department of Revenue

    592 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. 1980)   Cited 40 times
    In Consumer Contact Co. v. State Dept. of Rev., 592 S.W.2d 782, 787 (Mo.banc 1980), the Missouri Supreme Court interpreted Section 536.140 to authorize "the court to... remand the case to the agency with direction to reconsider the facts in light of such evidence only if the court finds either (a) the evidence could not have been produced in the exercise of reasonable diligence, or (b) the evidence was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency."

    In determining whether administrative findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, this Court may consider only the record that was before the administrative body. Missouri Real Estate Commission v. Steger, 509 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.banc 1974); State ex rel. Favazza v. Ketchum, 367 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Mo. 1963); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977); § 536.140.2, RSMo 1978; Rule 100.07(b)(3).

  4. Boyer v. City of Potosi

    38 S.W.3d 430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Analyzing “whether the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by holding evidentiary hearings outside Washington County without the consent of all the parties,” whether the trial court erred in striking paragraphs of the amended petition for judicial review, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the initial petition

    As a general rule, judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law on the face of the record, and bars consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Section 536.140.4, RSMo (1994), however, provides that a court may hear and consider evidence of alleged irregularities in the proceedings or agency unfairness not shown in the record; but it is discretionary with the trial court as to whether it will hear the additional evidence.

  5. Sturdevant v. Fisher

    940 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    We note that, had Mr. Sturdevant sought the Superintendent's own testimony or other evidence regarding the claimed violation of § 536.080.2, § 536.140.4 allows a circuit court to depart from the general rule that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters on the agency record, so that the circuit court can consider further evidence of irregularities in procedure. Gore v. Wochner , 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Mr. Sturdevant, however, did not seek such a determination by the circuit court in the case at bar.

  6. Shadow Lake of Noel, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control

    893 S.W.2d 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 16 times

    "Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law that appear on the face of the record, thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency." Id. at 227[2] (citing Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334[2] (Mo.App. 1977)). Such limitation is imposed by § 536.140, RSMo 1986, which reads in pertinent part:

  7. Wagner v. Jackson County Board of Zoning Adjustment

    857 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 13 times

    The use of the word "may" in section 536.140.2 and .4 indicates that it is discretionary with the court as to whether it will hear additional evidence. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). See Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. Potts, 802 S.W.2d 520, 524-25 (Mo.App. 1990), for a thorough discussion of the application of the Administrative Procedure Act as the functional equivalent to special statutes providing review by certiorari in zoning decisions and the interrelationship of these laws.

  8. Goleman v. MCI Transporters

    844 S.W.2d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    In Goleman, we found that, "[w]hen a pre-existing disability is present, the claimant is required to prove the extent of the pre-existing disability so that such percentage can be evaluated against the disability percentage existing after the compensable injury."

    Under these circumstances we will not convict the Commission of error for refusing to apply the 10% figure to the total disability. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). The point is denied.

  9. Gerig v. Bd. of Educ. of Cent. School D

    767 S.W.2d 586 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    The use of the term "may" reflects that the granting of such an evidentiary hearing is within the discretion of the trial court. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333 (Mo.App. 1977) [3, 4]. On remand the trial court should permit Gerig to establish on the record his specific grounds for seeking such a hearing. The court can then exercise its discretion as to the need for such a hearing bearing in mind that justice is best served where litigants have an opportunity to present their evidence to the fact-finder.

  10. Lorenz v. City of Florissant

    747 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 8 times
    In Lorenz, a city council denied a homeowner's request for a variance from a zoning restriction affecting the ability to install vinyl siding.

    Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law that appear on the face of the record, thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334[2] (Mo.App. 1977). The nature of the hearing before the trial court is one of review, not de novo.