Section 5 Lack of Adequate Remedy at Law by Way of Appeal

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

Prohibition will be denied if an adequate remedy is provided
by appeal. State ex rel. Bugg v. Daniels, 274 S.W.3d 502, 504
(Mo. App. W.D. 2008); State ex rel. Baldwin v. Dandurand,
785 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Mo. banc 1990). “The fact that the remedy by appeal may be unsatisfactory or inconvenient alone will not invoke our discretion for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of prohibition.” State ex rel. Grimes v. Appelquist, 706 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986). “But though prohibition cannot be substituted for an appeal, the right of appeal must be a full and adequate remedy before its availability will preclude resort to prohibition.” State ex rel. Vogel v. Campbell, 505 S.W.2d 54, 58 (Mo. banc 1974). If a jurisdictional requirement for maintenance of a claim before an agency is not met, prohibition will lie to prevent unwarranted and expensive litigation, inconvenience, and waste of time. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 606 S.W.2d 496, 503 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980).

What constitutes adequate relief by way of appeal is left to
the discretion of the court. State ex rel. McCulloch v. Schiff,
852 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Prohibition has been denied when an agency renders a “final” decision that is “judicial or quasi-judicial and affect[s] private rights” subject to judicial review under the provisions set forth in §§ 536.100–536.140, RSMo 2000 and Supp. 2010, of the MoAPA (Missouri Administrative Procedure Act), Chapter 536, RSMo. SeeBrown v. Weir, 675 S.W.2d 135, 141–42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) (prohibition properly denied when the board of education’s order of dismissal of a teacher was a “decision” of “agency” in “contested case” and reviewable under the MoAPA); see also State ex rel. Jim Walter Plastics v. Sihnhold, 629 S.W.2d 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982) (petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain an ALJ from enforcing an order requiring the filing of a report of injury was quashed because the alleged error could be preserved and presented on appeal from the final judgment in a worker’s compensation claim).

While the Supreme Court of Missouri has expressed a strong reluctance to review interlocutory allegations of nonjurisdictional trial court error in prohibition actions, review by prohibition has been granted “from time to time in peculiarly limited situations” when absolute irreparable harm may occur to a litigant if relief
is not made available. State ex rel. Faith Hosp. v. Enright,
706 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Mo. banc 1986)...