ST. LOUIS — The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a circuit court decision dismissing Double AA Market's case against St. Louis.
Double AA argued that the city’s denial of its permit application for a convenience store was improperly influenced by the longstanding political practice of "aldermanic courtesy," according to the Nov. 5 opinion.
The court found that Double AA failed to state a valid claim, affirming that an adequate legal remedy already existed.
The appeal centered on the denial of Double AA’s conditional use permit for a convenience store in an "F" Neighborhood Commercial District, where such use requires city approval.
Double AA applied for the permit, but the St. Louis Board of Public Service denied it, and the Board of Adjustment upheld that decision.
In response, Double AA petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari, claiming the denial was illegal and driven by political influence from the ward’s alderman—a practice known locally as “aldermanic courtesy,” whereby city decisions are allegedly influenced by the preferences of local aldermen.
Initially, Double AA also sought a declaratory judgment, asserting that the practice violated state and federal laws, according to the opinion.
This aspect of the case was later refiled as a separate action.
However, the city of St. Louis moved to dismiss Double AA’s declaratory judgment claim, arguing that existing legal avenues, including the writ of certiorari, provided sufficient grounds for review.
The circuit court sided with the city and dismissed the claim, leading Double AA to appeal.
The appellate court rejected Double AA’s arguments that its claim warranted additional consideration under Missouri’s Declaratory Judgment Act.
The judges concluded that Double AA failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law, as state law specifically allows for review of Board of Adjustment decisions through certiorari proceedings.
This form of judicial review encompasses claims of illegality, including those based on constitutional grounds.
In their ruling, the judges noted that Missouri law does not permit a declaratory judgment when an adequate legal remedy exists.
Furthermore, the court found that Double AA’s claim did not meet the necessary legal standards for a declaratory judgment, as it failed to present a justiciable controversy, a legally protectable interest, or a matter ripe for judicial determination beyond the Board’s decision itself.
Double AA’s acknowledgment that its standing derived solely from the permit denial further undermined its case, according to the ruling.
"In its briefing and at oral argument, Double AA concedes its standing flows from the Board’s denial of a conditional use permit and Double AA has not otherwise been damaged by the City’s alleged practice of aldermanic courtesy," the judges stated. "Suffice it to say Double AA’s allegation that, aside from the Board’s decision, the City of St. Louis somehow employs the practice of aldermanic courtesy in an unspecified way not directly impacting Double AA does not present a justiciable controversy, a legally protectable interest of Double AA, or a question ripe for this Court’s determination."
The decision highlights the court’s adherence to established legal channels for challenging administrative decisions and its reluctance to extend declaratory relief when other remedies are available.
Judge Cristian M. Stevens wrote the opinion, with Presiding Judge James M. Dowd and Judge Angela T. Quigless concurring.
The appellant was represented by Daniel J. Emerson.
The respondent was represented by Sheena R. Hamilton and Robert A. West.
Attorneys declined to comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals - Eastern District case number: ED112466