Janet Delana sued a Missouri gun shop and its employees after they sold a firearm to her adult daughter, who had severe mental illness; the mother had warned the store against the sale, but two days later the daughter bought a gun and ammunition and used it to fatally shoot her father. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act preempted the negligence claim and that Missouri law does not recognize a negligent-entrustment claim against firearm sellers. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed in part, ruling that the PLCAA expressly preserves negligent-entrustment actions and that Missouri common law (following Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390) permits such a claim against a seller who knowingly supplies a dangerous item to an unfit person. The court affirmed dismissal of the ordinary negligence claim and the individual liability claims against the corporate principals, then remanded the case for further proceedings on the negligent-entrustment theory.
The Missouri Supreme Court disciplinary proceeding against attorney Joel B. Eisenstein arose from his representation of a husband in a divorce case, in which the husband had unauthorized access to his wife's personal email account and provided Eisenstein with her payroll documents and opposing counsel's confidential list of direct-examination questions. Eisenstein reviewed the materials, used some of the payroll information in settlement discussions, and presented the examination outline to opposing counsel at trial without prior disclosure; he also sent opposing counsel a threatening email afterward. The Court found that these actions violated Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), 4-3.4(a), and 4-4.4(a) by using evidence obtained through improper means and failing to promptly notify opposing counsel. Although the disciplinary hearing panel had recommended an indefinite suspension with no reinstatement eligibility for 12 months, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension with no reinstatement eligibility for six months, citing Eisenstein's prior disciplinary record and the nature of the misconduct.
William David Hill appealed a circuit court judgment upholding the denial of his 2013 application for a concealed carry permit under section 571.101, which the Jefferson County sheriff rejected solely because of Hill’s 1973 guilty plea to felony forgery. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the denial. The Court held that the 1975 statutory restoration of “all rights and privileges of citizenship” upon completion of probation did not erase the historical fact of the guilty plea, which section 571.101.2(3) expressly disqualifies, and that the 2014 amendment to article I, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution did not apply retroactively. It further concluded that the statute created no unconstitutional retrospective disability because it imposes regulatory duties on sheriffs rather than new legal obligations on applicants.
William David Hill appealed the denial of his 2013 application for a concealed carry permit by the Jefferson County sheriff, who cited Hill’s 1973 guilty plea to felony forgery (a crime punishable by more than one year in prison) under section 571.101.2(3). The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the denial. The court held that the 1975 statutory restoration of “all rights and privileges of citizenship” upon completion of probation did not negate the historical fact of the guilty plea or conviction for purposes of the permit statute. It further ruled that a 2014 amendment to article I, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution applied only prospectively and that section 571.101 imposed no unconstitutional retrospective disability on Hill.
John Strake sued the Robinwood West Community Improvement District under Missouri’s Sunshine Law, alleging it unlawfully withheld public records—including a settlement agreement from a personal injury case—despite a written request for disclosure. The trial court ordered the district to release the documents but denied Strake’s request for civil penalties and attorney fees, finding that the district had not “knowingly” or “purposefully” violated the law because it relied on counsel’s advice to honor the agreement’s confidentiality clause. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment. It held that the district’s counsel had explicitly recognized the Sunshine Law’s requirement that settlement agreements are open records, yet still advised withholding them to avoid potential breach-of-contract liability; this demonstrated awareness of the legal obligation and a deliberate choice to disregard it. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the penalty and fee issues.
The case involved John McNeal, a prisoner, appealing the circuit court’s dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage. McNeal argued that sections 491.230 and 544.275 were unconstitutional because they failed to guarantee prisoners an unconditional right to appear in court for civil matters, and he sought direct review by the Missouri Supreme Court on that basis. The Court held that it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction under article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution because McNeal did not present a real and substantial challenge to the facial or as-applied validity of the statutes themselves. Instead, his claims centered on the trial court’s alleged failure to implement statutory alternatives to personal appearance, such as video proceedings under section 544.275 or other accommodations referenced in prior precedent like Call v. Heard. The appeal was therefore transferred to the Court of Appeals, Western District.
