# Sumpter v. City of Moberly

> Supreme Court of Missouri · February 23, 1983 · 645 S.W.2d 359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774449

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry SUMPTER, Terry Riles, Mike Congdon, John Stufflebean, Eugene Sims, Earl Lawson, Douglas Henry, Andrew Morrison, Robert Akers, Robert Dutton, Ronald Combs and Raymond Hill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MOBERLY, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** February 23, 1983
- **Citations:** 645 S.W.2d 359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Finch, Donnelly, Rendlen, Welliver, Higgins, Gunn, Seiler, Billings
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Independence-National Education Ass'n v. Independence School District, 2007 Mo. LEXIS 83 (2007).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774449

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In their motion for rehearing or for clarification, plaintiffs and certain amicus curiae suggest that the court’s opinion holds that an official in the executive branch of government can nullify a valid legislative enactment.
Plaintiffs misinterpret our opinion which clearly states that the ordinance enacted by the City Council of Moberly was a valid ordinance which was binding until changed by appropriate action by the City. The opinion goes on to recite that the City asserted that the mayor and city council had approved those changes which the city manager notified the firefighters would be made. This assertion by the City was not denied or contested in any way by plaintiffs. At no point in the record or in the briefs did plaintiffs contend that we were dealing with an attempt by someone in the executive branch to negate a valid legislative enactment and that what occurred was ineffective for that reason. At no time did plaintiffs assert that the city council (with the Mayor’s approval) had not acted on and approved the change in the duty schedule and the training program. Therefore, the court’s decision was based on the premise that there was appropriate legislative approval of the changes of which the firefighters were notified. The opinion does not hold otherwise.
In other respects, plaintiff’s motion is reargument of matters previously asserted.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774449. Public record. Not legal advice.