Section 3.44 Must Conform to State Law

• Library: Local Government Deskbook (2017 Ed.)

(5) (§3.44) Must Conform to State Law

Municipal ordinances are inferior to the statutes of a state. Ordinances regulating matters on which there is a general law of the state must be in conformity with state law; if they conflict in any manner, the general law of the state will prevail. State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach, 196 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. banc 1946). If the general laws of the state allow certain things, a municipal ordinance cannot prohibit them; if the state law prohibits certain things, a municipal ordinance cannot allow them unless there is an express legislative grant. Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Mo. banc 1986). If there are no general laws concerning a field of local law, a charter city or county is generally authorized to pass ordinances in that field, while statutory local governments still must find some authority to act in that field. Shepard Well Drilling Co. v. St. Louis Cnty., 912 S.W.2d 606, 609 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); see also City of Kansas City v. Carlson, 292 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (A charter city “may only enact ordinances ‘in conformity’ with state law on the same subject. If the city ordinance conflicts with a general law of the state, it is void.”) (citing McCollum v. Dir. of Revenue, 906 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Mo. banc 1995)).

Municipal ordinances may supplement or enlarge upon state law, but when the express or implied provisions of each are inconsistent and in irreconcilable conflict, the statute annuls the ordinance. Shepard Well Drilling, 912 S.W.2d at 609. The test for determining whether a conflict exists is whether the ordinance prohibits something the statute permits or permits something the statute prohibits. Cape Motor Lodge, 706 S.W.2d at 211. An ordinance does not conflict with state law merely because it enlarges upon the provisions of a statute by requiring more than the statute requires, unless the statute limits the requirements for all cases to its own prescriptions, i.e., preempts further regulation. See Page W., Inc. v. Cmty. Fire Prot. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 636 S.W.2d 65, 67–68 (Mo. banc 1982) (citing Womach, 196 S.W.2d at 812).

See also:

· Babb v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 414 S.W.3d 64, 70 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (a city’s ordinance requiring a special use permit for placement of residential solar panels, including installation requirements, was found to be regulatory and not prohibitive; it did not conflict with the state statute and regulations establishing

...