by law.” Id. Though amended Rule 98.02 would now allow Dykhouse, as County Counselor, to seek quo warranto in his own name, a relator in a quo warranto proceeding “must have that authority before he may proceed.” State ex rel. Schneider’s Credit Jewelers v. Brackman, 272 S.W.2d 289, 296 (Mo. banc 1954) (emphasis added). This is because the existence of a proper relator “is a jurisdictional requirement” in a quo warranto proceeding. State ex inf. Joyce-Hayes v. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, 864 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). In other words, to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court to decide a quo warranto action, the relator filing the petition must have the authority to do so at the outset of the proceedings. See Lee v. Jamison, 338 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Dykhouse’s argument, the change
holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal