Ronnie Lee White

In this case, Jerry Crockett obtained a 1994 judgment against Thomas Polen on a promissory note and later sought to collect via wage garnishment after earlier attempts were blocked by child support orders. When Polen moved in 2005 to quash the garnishment, claiming the ten-year statute of limitations had expired in September 2004, the trial court denied the motion and allowed collection to continue until the debt was paid. The appellate court affirmed, holding that garnishment payments received and recorded by the court in March 2004, before the original limitations period ended, tolled the statute under section 516.350.1. The court reasoned that the statute contains no requirement of voluntary payment by the debtor and distinguished prior cases where payments were recorded only after the limitations period had already lapsed.

procedure

In Gibbons v. J. Nuckolls, Inc., a consumer who purchased a used car sued both the retail dealership and the upstream wholesaler under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, alleging that the wholesaler failed to disclose the vehicle's prior accident damage, causing the buyer an ascertainable loss. The trial court dismissed the claim against the wholesaler for lack of privity of contract. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MPA's definition of "person" expressly includes corporations such as wholesalers and does not require a direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The court's reasoning relied on the statute's plain language, prior cases permitting attorney-general actions against upstream sellers, and the Act's purpose of protecting consumers from deceptive practices regardless of the chain of sale.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a wrongful death claim by Kimberly Hodges against the City of St. Louis after her mother died from injuries in a car accident caused by a police officer driving the wrong way without lights or sirens. The City asserted sovereign immunity and argued it could not be vicariously liable because officers are employed by the Board of Police Commissioners rather than the City, while Hodges challenged the constitutionality of the statutory cap on damages against public entities. The court held that Missouri statute creates a dual agency relationship making the officer an agent of the City for liability purposes in motor vehicle negligence cases, affirmed the waiver of sovereign immunity under section 537.600.1(1), upheld the damages limitation as constitutional, and affirmed the reduced judgment of $335,118.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether the fictional gain from ABB C-E Nuclear Power's deemed asset sale—triggered by its parent's stock sale and an IRC section 338(h)(10) election—qualified as business income apportionable to Missouri under the multi-state tax compact or as non-business income. The Administrative Hearing Commission ruled the gain was non-business income, resulting in no Missouri tax liability, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied the transactional and functional tests, finding the one-time liquidation was not a regular business transaction nor an integral part of ABB's ongoing operations, so the proceeds were not subject to apportionment.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney Edgar Lim for his representation of clients seeking work visas, labor certification, and residency permits in an immigration matter. The Missouri Supreme Court found that Lim violated Rule 4-1.16(d) by withholding a labor certification document to which the clients were entitled after terminating the representation in an effort to coerce payment of fees. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish violations of other rules regarding disclosure of confidential information, use of information to a former client's detriment, or implying a partnership. Considering Lim's 31-year practice record with only one prior minor disciplinary action, the court ordered a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved the Missouri Association of Club Executives challenging the constitutionality of HB 972 after the bill, originally focused on intoxication-related traffic offenses, was amended late in the legislative session to add provisions regulating adult entertainment establishments, including bans on private viewing rooms and certain activities. The circuit court ruled for the association and severed the new provisions, and the state appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the amendments violated article III, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution by changing the bill's original purpose. The court reasoned that the adult entertainment regulations were unrelated to the bill's initial subject of alcohol-related traffic offenses and constituted the type of log-rolling the constitutional provision was designed to prevent.

procedurecriminal law

David Pierce, a steel worker with a pre-existing shoulder condition, sought temporary workers' compensation medical benefits for aggravation of his right shoulder injury from repetitive tasks, filing a claim against his former employer BSC, Inc. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied the claim against BSC, and the court affirmed. The court applied the last exposure rule from section 287.063, determining that Pierce had been exposed to repetitive motion hazards at his later employer, Ford Motor Company, for more than three months before filing the claim. Because this exposure exceeded three months, the repetitive motion exception in section 287.067.7 did not shift liability back to the prior employer BSC.

labor & employment

In State v. Davis, two defendants were convicted by a jury of multiple felonies, including armed criminal action and first-degree robbery, stemming from their armed robbery of an IGA grocery store in St. Charles, Missouri. The trial court had allowed the prosecution to introduce extensive evidence of an uncharged robbery at a McDonald's bar four days earlier to prove the defendants' identity as the perpetrators. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case, holding that the evidence of the prior uncharged crime was inadmissible because the two robberies were not sufficiently identical or distinctive in method to qualify under the identity exception to the general rule barring propensity evidence. The court reasoned that while such evidence can be admitted if logically and legally relevant, the detailed and voluminous presentation here was overly prejudicial and exceeded the narrow requirements for similarity set out in prior precedent like State v. Bernard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rodney and Diane Glass, who sued First National Bank of St. Louis after the bank failed to timely deliver and record a deed of release following satisfaction of their mortgage in 2001. The Glasses sought statutory penalties under section 443.130 RSMo for the bank's delay beyond the required fifteen business days after their demand letter. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Glasses on the penalty claim, awarding ten percent of the deed of trust amount, while dismissing their other claims. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Glasses' letter sufficiently notified the bank of the demand under the statute despite not quoting its exact language, as it identified the loan, provided proof of payment, and requested the release. The Court applied strict construction to the penal statute but found the notice requirement met based on the letter's content and the bank's receipt.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Vincent McFadden, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced to death following an altercation in which he and another man shot the victim. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case because the trial court erred in denying McFadden's Batson challenge to the state's use of peremptory strikes. The court found that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking African-American venirepersons, such as a phone ringing or work absences, were pretextual when compared to similarly situated white jurors who were not struck, indicating racial discrimination in jury selection that violated the Equal Protection Clause.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In York v. Director of Revenue, the Director revoked Ryan York's driver's license after a trooper arrested him for driving while intoxicated at a sobriety checkpoint. The circuit court reinstated York's driving privileges, finding insufficient probable cause because the trooper improperly administered field sobriety tests, the portable breath test results lacked credibility, and the remaining observations (odor of alcohol, watery and bloodshot eyes, and York's admission to drinking one or two beers) did not establish probable cause. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly assessed the credibility of the evidence and that the Director failed to meet the burden of showing probable cause by a preponderance of the evidence under section 302.505.1. The court deferred to the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the trooper's testimony and the three-minute timeframe of the encounter.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Earl M. Forrest, who was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder for killing Harriett Smith, Michael Wells, and Deputy Sharon Joann Barnes during a dispute over a drug-related agreement and a subsequent shootout with police. The jury recommended and the trial court imposed three death sentences based on statutory aggravating factors including murders committed for pecuniary gain and the killing of a peace officer in the line of duty. Forrest appealed, raising claims of evidentiary errors such as the admission of hearsay testimony and improper bolstering during the guilt phase, as well as prior unadjudicated conduct and victim impact testimony during the penalty phase. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's rulings for abuse of discretion and plain error, determining that any errors were not sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome or deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and death sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the modification of child custody between Melissa Elaine Pirisky (Mother) and Adrian Dennis Meyer (Father). The Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau awarded full legal and physical custody to the father after the mother repeatedly interfered with visitation and failed to appear in the modification proceedings. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the state court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act because Arizona, the child's home state, declined to exercise jurisdiction, and Missouri was the more appropriate forum given the father's residency and the history of prior decrees there. The court also found no good cause or excusable neglect to set aside the default judgment against the mother, as she was properly served and informed of the consequences of non-appearance.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Zink, a jury convicted David Stanley Zink of first-degree murder for killing Amanda Morton after a traffic accident and sentenced him to death based on statutory aggravators including prior rape convictions, avoiding arrest, and depravity of mind. Zink appealed, arguing errors related to his self-representation, including that his waiver of counsel was invalid, that standby counsel from the public defender's office should have been replaced, and that standby counsel's presentation of a diminished capacity defense conflicted with his own lack of deliberation defense. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, holding that Zink's waiver of counsel was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently after being fully informed of the rights and consequences, and that he had consented to standby counsel's participation in the trial, including during opening statements, evidence introduction, jury instructions, and the penalty phase.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned John W. Vandevere's challenge to his conviction for sexual abuse, claiming the evidence was insufficient to prove that he subjected the 16-year-old victim to sexual contact by forcible compulsion. The court affirmed the conviction after reviewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It found that the state presented sufficient proof under the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's age, size, and position of authority; his act of locking the victim in a hotel room; his physical pulling of her onto his lap; and the victim's resulting fear, crying, and inability to resist without risking greater harm.

criminal law

The case involved a 911 operator, Diana Golden, who was sued for wrongful death after allegedly misdirecting a police officer to the wrong location, resulting in a man being hit by a car. The operator sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from denying her motion for summary judgment based on immunity. The Missouri Supreme Court quashed the preliminary writ, holding that the statutory immunity under section 190.307, which provides qualified immunity except for gross negligence, supersedes the common law official immunity doctrine. The court reasoned that the statute's language indicates legislative intent to replace absolute common law immunity with a qualified version, allowing the trial court to reconsider the motion under the correct standard.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Nixon, Ford sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of a trial court's order compelling discovery in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the relatives of a former employee who died from lung cancer allegedly caused by asbestos exposure. The Missouri Supreme Court made absolute its preliminary writ, directing the trial court to vacate the order to compel and instead limit discovery to relevant, non-duplicative matters within reasonable temporal and subject matter parameters. The court reasoned that the broad discovery requests lacked any limitations on time, geography, or specific products, making them overbroad and unduly burdensome, especially since similar discovery had already been obtained in prior related lawsuits involving the same parties.

proceduretorts & liability

In Speer v. Colon, a father appealed a trial court's modification of child custody and support orders for his child, which had originally granted joint legal and physical custody but designated the mother as primary physical custodian. The father had sought primary physical custody based on allegations of abuse and also filed a contempt motion. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the trial court failed to make the required written findings under section 452.375.6 detailing the specific relevant factors from section 452.375.2 that supported its custody arrangement as being in the child's best interest. The court further noted that Missouri law does not permit orders granting "primary physical custody" and directed the trial court to enter findings in conformity with section 452.375.1.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Gonzales, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and armed criminal action after stabbing Mike Gossir during an altercation; Gonzales claimed self-defense and sought to introduce evidence of Gossir's reputation for violence to show that Gossir was the initial aggressor. The trial court excluded the evidence on the ground that Gonzales had not shown awareness of the reputation. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case, holding that when reputation evidence is offered solely to prove who was the initial aggressor, the defendant need not have known of the reputation for the evidence to be admissible. The Court distinguished this use from offering the evidence to show the reasonableness of the defendant's fear, which does require such knowledge, and relied on prior precedent in State v. Buckles and the MAI-CR3d 306.06 instructions to support the distinction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Andre Cole's appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 postconviction relief motion following his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, and armed criminal action, for which he received a death sentence. The court considered claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failures to object to prosecutorial statements during closing arguments and to investigate or present additional mitigating evidence such as the defendant's adjustment to incarceration and mental health during the penalty phase. The court affirmed the denial of relief, finding that trial counsel's performance conformed to reasonable standards, that strategic choices like presenting good character evidence were not deficient, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged errors. The jury had found statutory aggravators, and prior direct appeal review had already upheld the sentence as free from passion or prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure