S. S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City

4 Citing cases

  1. Wimberly v. Labor and Indus. Com'n

    688 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1985)   Cited 24 times
    In Wimberly, the Missouri Supreme Court quoted this language with approval and stated that the principle "is no less applicable to state courts."

    On the contrary, we have adhered to the view that the courts of this state are bound to follow only our Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the federal Constitution and federal statutes. See, e.g., S.S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City, 515 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. 1974); State v. Moreland, 351 S.W.2d 33 (Mo. 1961); Wehrli v. Wabash Railroad Co., 315 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. 1958) (interpreting the Federal Employers' Liability Act); Meek v. New York, Chicago St. Louis Railroad Co., 88 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. banc 1935) (interpreting the Federal Safety Appliance Act); Hardin v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 334 Mo. 1169, 70 S.W.2d 1075 (Mo. 1934) (interpreting the Federal Boiler Inspection Act). Although loose language in some opinions indicates that state courts are "bound" by a "federal court's" interpretation of a federal statute, we have discovered no instance in which this Court declined to interpret a federal statute in a particular fashion out of a concern that to do so would run afoul of a lower federal court interpretation of the statute.

  2. McNary v. Carlton

    527 S.W.2d 343 (Mo. 1975)   Cited 15 times
    Ordering the use of an advisory jury in light of community based obscenity standards

    In my opinion this is not a workable approach and we do not need to inflict it upon ourselves. Our own opinions describe the course chartered by the United States Supreme Court in what Judge Henley refers to as "this troubled area" as having "created uncertainty", S. S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City, 515 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Mo. 1974). In my judgment, the only workable solution is to abide by the provisions of our own constitution that "every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject", leaving it to the good sense of the Missouri public whether or not to read or purchase a particular book, so long as the author or publisher does not abuse the liberty guaranteed by our constitution by attempting to impose "The Happy Hooker", for example, on those who do not want it, or advertising it in an offensive way or offering it to children (there is no evidence of any such abuse in this case).

  3. State v. XLNT Corp.

    536 S.W.2d 836 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

    State ex rel. Wampler v. Bird, 499 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. 1973); State ex rel. Martin v. XLNT Corp., 525 S.W.2d 616, 620, 621[2] (Mo.App. 1975). See Kansas City v. O'Connor, 510 S.W.2d 689 (Mo. banc 1974); S. S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City, 515 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. 1974); S. S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City, 421 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1650, 44 L.Ed.2d 83 (1975). "* * * It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as `those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished.' * * * The definition of obscenity, however, is not a question of fact, but one of law; the word `obscene,' * * * is not merely a generic or descriptive term, but a legal term of art. * * * it is a term sufficiently definite in legal meaning to give a defendant notice of the charge against him * * *."

  4. Oliver v. City of Higginsville

    527 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 7 times

    It is axiomatic that issues unpleaded and never urged at the trial level may not be raised on appeal. S. S. W., Inc. v. Kansas City, 515 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Mo. 1974); and Gilliam v. Gohn, 303 S.W.2d 101, 108 (Mo. 1957). The resulting consequence is that appellants' third point will not be considered on appeal.