# State ex rel. Carrington v. Human

> Supreme Court of Missouri · December 21, 1976 · 544 S.W.2d 538

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5046622

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri ex rel. James M. CARRINGTON v. F. William HUMAN, Jr., and James Whitmore, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** December 21, 1976
- **Citations:** 544 S.W.2d 538
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Bardgett, Donnelly, Finch, Henley, Holman, Morgan, Seiler
- **Cited by:** 2 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/5046622

## Opinion text

• DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur only in the result for at least two reasons:
(1) State ex rel. Gralike v. Walsh, 483 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. banc 1972), cited with approval in the principal opinion, merely perpetuates the fiction that the courts, even before a general election, may usurp the *541 right of each house of the General Assembly to be the sole judge of the qualifications of its own members. Mo.Const. Art. III, § 18. I would disavow the holding in Gra-like.
(2) I doubt the present constitutional viability, under the “compelling state interest” standard articulated in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , of that portion of Mo.Const.Art. Ill, § 4 which requires that each representative shall have been a resident of the district which he is chosen to represent for one year. The justifications for upholding the constitutionality of such a provision (e. g. ensuring that the representative is exposed to the problems, needs and desires of the people and that they have a chance to observe him and gain first-hand knowledge of his habits and character — Cf. Chimento v. Stark, 353 F.Supp. 1211 , affirmed 414 U.S. 802 , 94 S.Ct. 125 , 38 L.Ed.2d 39 ) are no longer available to Missouri because of the decision in State ex rel. King v. Walsh, 484 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. banc 1972) which holds that a provision for residency for a given period of time “does not mean and require actual, physical presence * * *.” ( 484 S.W.2d, at 644 ).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5046622. Public record. Not legal advice.