in a manner more restrictive than the Missouri Billboard Act, and in a manner that was broader than the rights City retained in the Agreement. In other words, the Agreement contracted away City’s lawful zoning authority with respect to future applications to rebuild or relocate any of the forty-two signs identified in the Agreement. See Hon. Richard S. Cohen et. al, Settling Land Use Litigation While Protecting the Public Interest: Whose Lawsuit Is This Anyway?, 23 Seton Hall L. Rev. 844, 852 (1993) (“Where litigation ensues, the [municipality’s] power to settle would logically seem to follow. The resolution of a dispute in a manner facially inconsistent with duly adopted ordinances, however, raises serious concerns.”); 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations section 813 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Despite this concession, Lamar incon-gruently
recognizing that a municipality cannot bargain away duties it owes to the public recognizing the public interest exception recognizing that the general rule that a ministerial officer cannot in a judicial proceeding attack the validity of a law imposing duties on him is subject to the exception that such a law may be challenged where it involves the disbursement of public funds recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that defendants may agree to departure from sentencing guidelines in plea bargain