concluding that the amendment clarified the legislature’s original intent to exclude academic institutions from the State Personnel Law
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the amendment clarified the legislature’s original intent to exclude academic institutions from the State Personnel Law
- standard of review of denial of declaratory judgment is that of any other court-tried case, i.e., Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)
- “While an amendment to a statute must be deemed to have been intended to accomplish some purpose, that purpose can be clarification rather than a change in existing law.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPINDEN, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority, but I write separately to clarify that, for me, the determining point in resolving this case is the provision of § 174.140, RSMo 2000, that the Missouri Western State College’s board of regents shall have the power to “fix the ... compensation” and “enter into agreements for and make contributions to both voluntary and statutory retirement plans for ... teachers!.]” While § 36.350, RSMo 2000, makes provisions for state employees 1 and Missouri Western conceded at oral argument that it deems its teachers to be state employees, § 174.140 makes provisions for a specific group of state employees, teachers at state colleges and universities. Hence, under the doctrine recognized by the majority that a specific statute will prevail over a more general statute, § 174.140 governs in this case, and the respondents prevail.
. The statute is worded to apply to employees of state agencies.