Carolyn Holmes filed a wrongful death action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act against Union Pacific Railroad Company on behalf of her late husband’s estate, alleging his lung cancer resulted from workplace exposure to toxic substances. Union Pacific moved to dismiss because Holmes had not been appointed personal representative of the estate before filing suit, as required by FELA. The circuit court granted her thirty days to obtain the appointment and amend the petition, but Holmes missed the deadline and later sought additional time, claiming excusable neglect. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Holmes failed to demonstrate excusable neglect given her extended delay in seeking appointment despite knowing the requirement and prior similar cases involving her counsel.
The case was a wrongful death action brought by the children of a patient against Missouri Delta Medical Center, alleging that negligent care by the center and its employed physicians before, during, and after prostate surgery caused the patient's death. Following a jury trial that awarded economic, noneconomic, and aggravating circumstances damages, the medical center appealed, challenging the submission of aggravating circumstances damages and related procedural issues. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the proceedings, including that the submissibility challenge was properly preserved through motions for directed verdict and that substantial evidence supported the damages award under the applicable statutory standard for health care providers.
SEBA, LLC, operating a donut shop called Eddie’s Southtown Donuts, challenged an assessment by the Missouri Director of Revenue for unpaid state sales taxes, interest, and a five percent addition to tax covering October 2011 through September 2014. The Administrative Hearing Commission upheld the assessment after finding that SEBA failed to maintain adequate records to verify retail and wholesale sales, forcing the auditor to rely on incomplete documentation. On judicial review, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that substantial and competent evidence supported both the tax liability and the addition due to SEBA’s negligence in record-keeping under state law.
In State of Missouri v. Rashidi Don Loper, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree attempted rape, multiple counts of domestic assault and armed criminal action, and victim tampering arising from an April 2015 incident in which he attacked E.S.L., his former romantic partner, in her apartment. Loper appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of E.S.L.'s later conduct, including a 2017 confrontation in which she allegedly tried to assault him with a tire iron, claiming the evidence was needed to show the full context of their relationship and rebut expert testimony on domestic violence patterns. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions, holding that the circuit court did not plainly err in excluding the post-offense evidence as too remote in time to be relevant to E.S.L.'s state of mind during the charged events and noting that Loper had already presented testimony about their tumultuous relationship. The court concluded that the exclusion did not prevent Loper from presenting a complete defense.
The case involved Mary J. Moore, a school bus driver injured when a Metro Call-A-Ride bus collided with her vehicle, who sued Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro and obtained a jury verdict of $1.878 million. Metro sought to reduce the award under section 537.610, which imposes a statutory cap on damages against public entities that have waived sovereign immunity for negligent operation of motor vehicles. Moore argued that section 70.429, which adopts federal regulations requiring certain levels of financial responsibility for transit systems receiving state funding, conflicted with and superseded the damages cap. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's reduction of the award, holding that the plain language of the statutes created no conflict and that compliance with federal financial responsibility rules did not waive or alter the per-occurrence liability limit in section 537.610.
This case arose when a former prisoner sued two public defenders for legal malpractice, claiming they failed to challenge the state court's jurisdiction over his burglary and property damage convictions stemming from an offense on federal property. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment upholding a jury verdict for the plaintiff and remanded the case. The court held that public defenders, as state employees performing discretionary duties in client representation, are entitled to official immunity from suit, making that defense dispositive without reaching other issues such as whether a submissible case was made. The decision emphasized that immunity protects against both liability and the burdens of litigation, and coverage under the state legal expense fund does not preclude asserting the defense.