holding that where "appeal fails to afford adequate relief, prohibition is the appropriate remedy to forbear patently unwarranted and expensive litigation, inconvenience and waste of time and talent"
How later courts described this case
- holding that where "appeal fails to afford adequate relief, prohibition is the appropriate remedy to forbear patently unwarranted and expensive litigation, inconvenience and waste of time and talent"
- holding that statutory provision granting a governmental entity the power to “sue or be sued” did not amount to an express waiver of sovereign immunity
- hospital district exercises exclusively governmental functions
- by use of "sue and be sued” language, legislature intended public entities to be able to be sued by proper claimants, but did not authorize a suit in tort for negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring.
In State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Mo.banc 1983), this Court held that prohibition will lie to prevent an excess of jurisdiction but “that we should not continue the unfettered use of the writ of prohibition to allow interlocutory review of trial court error.”
In State ex rel. McNary v. Hais, 670 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Mo.banc 1984), this Court held that prohibition will lie where “[r]ela-tors do not have adequate remedy by way of appeal.”
In this case, sovereign immunity raises the question of jurisdiction and prohibition will lie.
I concur.