# State Ex Rel. Powers v. Donohue

> Supreme Court of Missouri · June 4, 1963 · 368 S.W.2d 432

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648754

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri Ex Rel. Albert W. POWERS and Pearline Powers, His Wife, John Ebner and Gladys Ebner, His Wife, Adele Erb, Gladys M. Bellstein, Elmer J. Hoelzer and Carolyn Hoelzer, His Wife, Personally and as Class Representatives of Persons Similarly Situate, Oakville Point Taxpayers Association, a Corporation, Respondents, v. Carroll J. DONOHUE, Edward W. Garnholz, Paul M. Morris, Harry N. Soffer, Constituting the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, St. Louis County, Missouri, and James H. J. McNary, Intervenors, and Vigus Quarries, Inc., a Corporation, Intervenor, Appellants; STATE of Missouri Ex Rel. Carroll J. DONOHUE, Edward W. Garnholz, Paul M. Morris and Harry N. Soffer, Constituting the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, the County of St. Louis, Missouri, James H. J. McNary, as Supervisor of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, and Vigus Quarries, Inc., a Corporation, Relators, v. Noah WEINSTEIN, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District of the State of Missouri, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** June 4, 1963
- **Citations:** 368 S.W.2d 432
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eager
- **Judges:** Dalton, Eager, Hollingsworth, Hyde, Leedy, Storckman, Westhues
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9648754

## Opinion text

EAGER, Judge
(concurring in result).
I would find no particular difficulty in holding that the notices, hearing and report as given, conducted and made in connection with the prior Ordinance No. 2518 would supply those requirements for the Ordinance now proposed; they referred to and affected precisely the same matter.
I would prefer to put this holding upon the basic fact that the respondents are attempting to accomplish by indirection that which they are specifically prohibited from doing directly; that is to say, they may not create any amendment to the zoning ordinance by referendum, but in fact and in substance they are here seeking a referendum upon the enactment of the prior ordinance. I would doubt that any zoning amendment may be accomplished by initiative.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648754. Public record. Not legal advice.