Missouri Supreme Court
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a Franklin Circuit Court judgment setting aside a 1987 permanent injunction that restricted operations at Glendale Shooting Club, concluding that changes to the club’s property made continued enforcement of the injunction inequitable.
In a unanimous opinion issued July 21, the court upheld the result reached after a bench trial, while saying the circuit court misstated the law when it said that a statutory change alone rendered continued enforcement inequitable.
The Supreme Court found, however, that the circuit court had an alternative and sufficient basis for dissolving the injunction: physical changes at the shooting range that reduced the noise heard on the neighboring property.
William K. Landolt and Jeri F. Cashin appealed the circuit court’s decision. Cashin’s last name had been erroneously listed as Landolt in the case, according to the opinion.
The Landolts argued that the lower court erred by relying solely on section 537.294.2, a Missouri law addressing immunity for firearm ranges from liability related to noise or sound emissions.
The Supreme Court agreed that a change in law, standing alone, is not enough to set aside a final judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(5), which permits relief when it is no longer equitable for a judgment to remain in force.
The court said its earlier decisions had made clear that courts must weigh the equities and consider the circumstances of each case. Still, the justices ruled that the circuit court did not rely exclusively on the statute.
Glendale acquired property next to the Racine family property in 1976 with the intention of operating a gun club and firing range.
The Racines later brought a nuisance lawsuit, arguing that gunshots continued through all hours of the day and night and could be heard plainly and loudly at their residence.
The Franklin Circuit Court granted a permanent injunction in 1987.
The injunction limited Glendale to 10 shooting competitions each year and no more than eight people shooting at one time during those competitions.
Outside of competitions, members could shoot only from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Firearms larger than .22 caliber could be used only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. An appeals court affirmed the injunction in 1988.
The Legislature soon enacted section 537.294, which provides firearm-range owners and authorized users immunity from criminal and civil liability arising from range noise or sound emissions.
The law also states that owners and users are not subject to nuisance or trespass actions related to such noise and that Missouri courts may not enjoin range operations on that basis. The Landolts bought the Racine property in 1989.
Glendale first sought to dissolve the injunction in 1998, arguing that the statute and modifications to reduce noise had made the injunction absurd. The dispute later led to a settlement agreement that barred litigation between the parties for 20 years. After that period expired, Glendale again sought to set aside the injunction, citing the statute and physical improvements to the range.
The Supreme Court previously considered the case in 2023 and ruled that the circuit court had improperly treated the statute’s enactment as sufficient by itself to grant relief. It remanded the matter for a proper weighing of the equities.
After the case returned to the circuit court, Glendale prevailed following a bench trial. The lower court found that barriers added atop berms surrounding the ranges created a “sound shadow” that reduced gunfire noise on the Landolts’ property.
The circuit court determined the reduction meant the noise no longer qualified as a nuisance, at least in comparison with ordinances in nearby counties.
The Supreme Court said it defers to a circuit court’s factual findings when reviewing a Rule 74.06(b) motion and reviews the ultimate decision for an abuse of discretion.
It concluded that the circuit court properly weighed the changed conditions at Glendale’s property and did not abuse its discretion by dissolving the injunction.
Because the decision was affirmed based on the physical changes and the equities surrounding them, the court said it did not need to address the Landolts’ remaining arguments, including arguments concerning the constitutional validity of section 537.294.
Missouri Supreme Court case number: SC101187
