Section 15.17 Standing

• Library: Local Government Deskbook (2017 Ed.)

3. (§15.17) Standing

In Martee v. City of Kennett, 784 S.W.2d 621 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990), the Southern District of the Court of Appeals reversed the Dunklin County Circuit Court’s finding that a nonconsenting property owner did not have standing to challenge the validity of an annexation ordinance. The reversal was based on the fact that the nonconsenting property owner was challenging the ordinance on the ground that the area annexed was not contiguous and compact. More to the point, the property owner was complaining that the City had altered the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation in order to deny him standing to raise the issue.

In City of Pacific v. Metro Development Corp., 922 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996), certain property owners in an area proposed to be annexed under § 71.015, now RSMo 2016, contested the declaratory judgment action filed against them by the City, and they were dismissed at trial. As a result of the dismissal, these owners’ properties were left as unincorporated islands surrounded by the City after the annexation...