Section 22 Strict Construction of Delegation

• Library: Condemnation Practice 2009

A party seeking to exercise the power of eminent domain must demonstrate that the legislature has either in express terms or by “necessary implication” given it this power. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Newingham, 386 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Mo. App. S.D. 1965). The grantee will not be allowed to take the lands of another unless such right comes clearly and unmistakably within the limits of the authority granted. See:

• State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1967)

• Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 119 S.W.2d 826 (Mo. 1938)

• City of St. Charles v. DeVault Mgmt., 959 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997)

• Osage Water Co. v. Miller County Water Auth., Inc., 950 S.W.2d 569 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997)

If the condemnation proceeding is not authorized by law, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings. Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of Kansas City, 742 S.W.2d 146, 149–50 (Mo. banc 1987).

...