Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2017A Hancock Amendment challenge “is not ripe without specific proof of new or increased duties and increased expenses, and these elements cannot be established by mere ‘common sense,’ or ‘speculation and conjecture.’” Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844, 849 (Mo. banc 2004) (emphasis added). 2017A Hancock Amendment challenge “is not ripe without specific proof of new or increased duties and increased expenses, and these elements cannot be established by mere ‘common sense,’ or ‘speculation and conjecture.’” Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844, 849 (Mo. banc 2004) (emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. City of Desloge v. St. Francois Countygreen2 sentences2024Francois Cnty., 245 S.W.3d 855, 861 (Mo. App. 2007) (finding that city officials included as co-parties with the county and alleged as taxpayers have standing to bring a Hancock Amendment challenge). 2024Francois Cnty., 245 S.W.3d 855, 861 (Mo. App. 2007) (finding that city officials included as co-parties with the county and alleged as taxpayers have standing to bring a Hancock Amendment challenge). | 1 | 1 |
King-Willmann Ex Rel. King v. Webster Groves School Districtgreen2 sentences2017Dist., 361 S.W.3d 414, 416-17 (Mo. banc 2012) (rioting taxpayers have standing to bring a Hancock Amendment challenge against a statute, not government entities). . 2017Dist., 361 S.W.3d 414, 416-17 (Mo. banc 2012) (rioting taxpayers have standing to bring a Hancock Amendment challenge against a statute, not government entities). . | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Lynchgreen1 sentence2015Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Breitenfeld v. School District of Clayton
green
2 sentences2024The constitution’s plain language indicates that a Hancock Amendment violation occurs if both: “(1) the State requires a new or increased activity or service of political subdivisions; and (2) the political subdivisions experience increased costs in performing that activity or service.” Id. 2024The constitution’s plain language indicates that a Hancock Amendment violation occurs if both: “(1) the State requires a new or increased activity or service of political subdivisions; and (2) the political subdivisions experience increased costs in performing that activity or service.” Id. | 2 | 2013–2024 |
Fort Zumwalt School District v. State
green
2 sentences2013It reads “Taxpayers may bring actions for interpretations of limitations.” Id. 2013It reads “Taxpayers may bring actions for interpretations of limitations.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |