two-fold analysis in Missouri

2016“An investigatory detention under Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)] involves a two-fold analysis: (1) whether the circumstances support reasonable suspicion justifying the initial stop, and (2) whether the officers’ actions were ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial interference.” Id. (quoting State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo.banc 2011)).

2016“An evaluation of whether the reasonable suspicion standard has been met requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

2021A controversy is ripe when the dispute “is developed sufficiently to allow the court to make an accurate determination of the facts, to resolve a conflict that is presently existing, and to grant specific relief of a conclusive character.” Mo. Health Care Ass’n v. Att’y Gen. of Mo., 953 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Mo. banc 1997). 2 2 The principal opinion states this test but adds to it the two-fold test Missouri courts derived from Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977).

2003Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. 136, 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967).

2016“An investigatory detention under Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)] involves a two-fold analysis: (1) whether the circumstances support reasonable suspicion justifying the initial stop, and (2) whether the officers’ actions were ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial interference.” Id. (quoting State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo.banc 2011)).

2016“An investigatory detention under Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)] involves a two-fold analysis: (1) whether the circumstances support reasonable suspicion justifying the initial stop, and (2) whether the officers’ actions were ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial interference.” Id. (quoting State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo.banc 2011)).

2021A controversy is ripe when the dispute “is developed sufficiently to allow the court to make an accurate determination of the facts, to resolve a conflict that is presently existing, and to grant specific relief of a conclusive character.” Mo. Health Care Ass’n v. Att’y Gen. of Mo., 953 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Mo. banc 1997). 2 2 The principal opinion states this test but adds to it the two-fold test Missouri courts derived from Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977).

2021A controversy is ripe when the dispute “is developed sufficiently to allow the court to make an accurate determination of the facts, to resolve a conflict that is presently existing, and to grant specific relief of a conclusive character.” Mo. Health Care Ass’n v. Att’y Gen. of Mo., 953 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Mo. banc 1997). 2 2 The principal opinion states this test but adds to it the two-fold test Missouri courts derived from Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977).

2021The rationale for that test, which is to “protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties,” id., is not served in this case.

2003Ripeness does not exist when the question rests solely on a probability that an event will occur."); Ports Petroleum Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Mo. banc 2001)("A `ripe controversy' is one of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."). *27 Determining whether a particular case is ripe for judicial resolution requires a two-fold inquiry: a court must evaluate (1) whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and (2) the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied.