The case concerns 2015 Missouri statutes (sections 67.287 and 479.359.2) that imposed revenue caps on traffic fines and minimum standards for municipalities and police departments, but applied only to St. Louis County and its cities. In 2016, a circuit court declared these provisions unconstitutional under the Missouri Constitution's ban on local or special laws and issued a permanent injunction, which the Supreme Court affirmed. After the Court later adopted a rational basis test for such challenges, the state sought relief from the injunction under Rule 74.06(b)(5), arguing the change in legal analysis made continued enforcement inequitable. The circuit court denied the motion, and on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed that denial, holding that a shift in interpretive method alone does not satisfy the rule's requirements when no changed facts or circumstances render the original judgment inequitable.
In State of Missouri v. David Thompson, the defendant was convicted of fourth-degree domestic assault and violating an order of protection after striking his ex-boyfriend with a vehicle in violation of a protective order. Thompson appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss due to lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included offense instruction, and submitting a corrective instruction to address inconsistent jury verdicts on the assault count. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions, holding that Thompson's claims lacked merit because the preliminary hearing did not violate his right to counsel in this instance, he had agreed to the submitted instruction, and the trial court properly exercised authority to resolve the inconsistent verdicts before discharging the jury under established precedent. The court reasoned that a jury's verdict is not binding until accepted and the jury is discharged, allowing correction of errors to ensure clarity without prejudicing the defendant.
This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Scott Frey against the Missouri Department of Natural Resources after he was injured while biking on the Katy Trail, which is managed by the department. The department sought a writ of prohibition to stop the circuit court from proceeding with the case, arguing immunity under the Recreational Use Act. The Supreme Court of Missouri made the writ permanent, holding that the Act shields the department and its employees from liability because Frey entered the land without charge for recreational purposes. The court reasoned that the Act eliminates any duty of care for such landowners regarding the safety of the premises, and employees stand in the same position as the landowner regarding liability for conditions on the land.
This case involved a negligence lawsuit by Presley Karlin against UATP Springfield, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Springfield, stemming from injuries Karlin sustained at an interactive trampoline park in 2021. Urban Air moved to compel arbitration based on a Release and Indemnification Agreement containing an arbitration clause that was signed on Karlin's behalf by his mother during prior visits. The circuit court overruled the motion, but the Supreme Court of Missouri vacated that order and remanded for the motion to be sustained. The Court reasoned that the agreement included a delegation clause requiring arbitration of threshold issues concerning the scope, arbitrability, or validity of the arbitration agreement, and that Karlin had raised no specific challenge to the delegation clause itself—only to the agreement as a whole—making those questions for the arbitrator rather than the court.
In State of Missouri v. Richard D. Emery, the defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder for intentionally killing his girlfriend K.K., her mother J.M., and her two young children after a domestic dispute escalated; he admitted the killings but disputed deliberation, which the jury rejected based on evidence including the sequence of events, 911 calls, and his post-crime actions. Emery appealed, arguing errors in striking a juror for cause, admitting evidence in the guilt and penalty phases, the prosecutor's closing argument, and alleged religious bias in imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberation as part of a plan to eliminate witnesses, no procedural errors, and that the sentences were not disproportionate given the multiple vulnerable victims and similar precedents. The court held that all statutory requirements for the death penalty were satisfied.
This case concerned whether the initiative petition for Amendment 3 satisfied Missouri constitutional and statutory form requirements for proposing a constitutional amendment by initiative. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the petition was in proper form and valid for placement on the ballot, rejecting challenges that it failed to list every statute or constitutional provision that might be impacted. The court reasoned that article III, section 50 requires only identification of utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable existing constitutional provisions, not a broader listing of statutes, and that section 116.050.2(2) imposes no such requirement; it further noted that the Attorney General and Secretary of State had approved the form over a year earlier and that proponents had gathered sufficient verified signatures in reliance on that approval. The decision reversed the circuit court's ruling and allowed the measure to proceed.