# King v. Priest

> Supreme Court of Missouri · November 10, 1947 · 357 Mo. 68

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3529449

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel King, Robert Goldsmith, Albert Dallas, John R. Judge, Tobin Anderson, Julius Hoff, Chester Walk, John Rooney and Frank Dempsey, for and on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Patrolmen, Sergeants and Turnkeys of the Metropolitan Police Force of the City of St. Louis, Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. H. Sam Priest, Thomas H. Cobbs, Francis L. George, Ben. L. Liberman and Aloys P. Kaufmann, Constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** November 10, 1947
- **Citations:** 357 Mo. 68; 206 S.W.2d 547; 1947 Mo. LEXIS 689
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Dalton, Leedy, Hyde, Ellison, Conkling, Douglas, Clark, Tipton
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3529449

## Opinion text

DOUGLAS, J.
(concurring). — I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion. In City of Springfield v. Clouse this court held that Section 29, Article I of the Constitution of 1945 does not apply to public employees, not because of a doctrine of [558] statutory construction as 'held in the principal opinion, which doctrine in my view cannot be employed to nullify a provision of a bill of rights, but because the very purpose of Section 29, Article I makes it. legally impossible of application to public employees.
The principal opinion in this case deals with Rule- 23, Section 342 only on the issues involved in this case. Under the general police powers of the state, the Board of Public Commissioners are empowered in their discretion to forbid members of the police department to join a union.
However, I gravely doubt that Rule 23, Section 342 could be upheld in its entirety. It seems to be so broad as to place unreasonable restrictions on the rights of members of the police department as citizens to meet and to join organizations, the purpose of which would not be inconsistent with proper police discipline or inimical to public welfare.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3529449. Public record. Not legal advice.