Section 12 Is a Hearing Required by Law?

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

The question is not whether a hearing occurred (as a question of fact), but whether one was required (as a question of law). The hearing must be imposed by a constitutional provision, statute, or ordinance. SeeState ex rel. Yarber v. McHenry, 915 S.W.2d 325, 328
(Mo. banc 1994) (“The right to a hearing . . . is determined by substantive law outside [Chapter 536, RSMo].”); Strozewski v. City of Springfield, 875 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. banc 1994).

If an agency provides a hearing only as a matter of courtesy or convenience, the proceeding does not thereby become a “contested case.” Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Jefferson County v. State Highway Comm’n,472 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. 1971). But even when
there is no specific mention of a “hearing,” it has been held that
the requirement of certain procedures that constitute a “hearing” will be sufficient to make the case “contested.” Morrell v. Harris,
418 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. 1967). Use of the term “hearing” usually means contested case procedure is mandated, but the hearing required must be adversarial in nature. City of Richmond Heights v. Bd. of Equalization of St. Louis County,586 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. banc 1979). There may be many “hotly contested” disputes concerning individuals’ rights, duties, or privileges, but the case remains “noncontested” unless there is a hearing requirement. State ex rel. Leggett v. Jensen,318 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. banc 1958), called into doubt on other grounds by Yarber, 915 S.W.2d 325.

The contested case “hearing” requirement has undergone extensive litigation. Historically, for a case to qualify as a contested case, there had to be a statutory requirement for a hearing. Three cases, however, make...