Boyle v. Trump

584 S.W.2d 119, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2399
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 26, 1979
DocketNo. 40880
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 584 S.W.2d 119 (Boyle v. Trump) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyle v. Trump, 584 S.W.2d 119, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2399 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was denied by the defendant Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund Board of University City. On plaintiff’s petition for review the circuit court, for want of an adequate record, remanded the case to defendant Board for reconsideration upon an appropriate record.

We hold the circuit court’s order on review was not an appealable order and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal.

Record of the Board’s meeting states nar-ratively: Plaintiff appeared with his counsel who stated plaintiff had developed a fear of fighting fires. A psychiatrist’s report was presented to that effect. The Board questioned plaintiff about his performance while in service and by a vote of 5 to 0 denied plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff filed a petition in the circuit court for review of the Board’s denial of his claim. Both parties moved for summary judgment, but the court denied both motions, ruling: “ . . . although discussion was had at the ‘hearing’ on May 26, 1976, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent produced probative evidence (or competent and substantial evidence) on which to base a proper decision and that no detailed record was made . . . This cause is remanded back to the Board . for reconsideration and complete hearing of Petitioner’s claim upon appropriate record being made of same.”

This ruling was in accord with Sect. 536.-130, RSMo., requiring “a complete transcript of the entire record” of testimony before the Board. Further, the record failed to comply with Sect. 536.090, RSMo., requiring the Board to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court properly remanded the case for compliance with the statutory requirements.

That ruling was not an appealable order. As held in Iron County v. State Tax Commission, 480 S.W.2d 65[3], 71 (Mo.1972), it is the duty of an administrative agency “to resolve disputed questions of fact and set these resolutions forth as the agency’s findings in order that, upon review, the Circuit Court can perform its function of review as required by Chapter 536, VAMS. The appeal filed here is premature as the order of the Circuit Court does not constitute a final disposition of the case and is not a final appealable order.” So it is here.

Appeal dismissed.

REINHARD, P. J., and GUNN and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McDowell v. City of Springfield
906 S.W.2d 908 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque
888 P.2d 475 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1994)
HIGH BIDGE HINKLE JT. VENT. v. Albuquerque
888 P.2d 475 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 S.W.2d 119, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyle-v-trump-moctapp-1979.