The case involved buyers who purchased a vehicle from a dealership and later sued for fraud and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, alleging issues with the vehicle's condition and title. The dealership moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the purchase agreement, but the trial court denied the motion after the buyers argued the agreement was an unenforceable adhesion contract and unconscionable. On appeal, the court reversed the denial, holding that the buyers failed to show the agreement was adhesive or unconscionable, as they signed it knowingly and the terms were not oppressive, thus the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable under applicable law. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to compel arbitration of the claims.
Roland Tyler appealed the circuit court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking post-conviction relief on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After reviewing the record, the court determined that the lower court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that no legal error was present. The court affirmed the denial of relief, noting that an extended opinion would lack precedential value and providing a memorandum to the parties instead. The judgment was affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The case involved Robert Vivona's appeal of his termination as a civilian employee of the Kansas City Police Department for failing to comply with the department's residency requirement, which mandated establishing a true, fixed, and permanent home in Kansas City. The Board of Police Commissioners upheld the termination after finding that Vivona had not actually resided in Kansas City despite submitting paperwork indicating otherwise, as evidence showed he continued to live and conduct business in Lee's Summit. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, and the appellate court agreed, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the hearing officer's recommendation for reinstatement and that substantial evidence supported the finding of noncompliance.
The case involved Diana Kritzer, a University of Missouri nurse terminated for alleged misconduct, who sought to enforce a grievance committee's recommendation for reinstatement (with suspension) as a binding arbitration award under her retention bonus agreement and university policies, while also pursuing judicial review of her termination. The trial court denied confirmation of the award, finding no agreement for binding arbitration that would preclude review by the Board of Curators, and granted summary judgment against her chapter 536 petition on the ground that she was not entitled to such review. Kritzer appealed, arguing the Curators were bound by the committee decision and that denial of chapter 536 review was erroneous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the grievance procedures allowed Curator review and that the University was exempt from chapter 536 judicial review as a matter of law.
The case involved the State of Missouri, through the Attorney General, filing a petition under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA) to recover the costs of Ronald Smith's incarceration, based on deposits into his inmate account that the AG suspected might derive from undisclosed assets. The trial court granted Smith's motion to dismiss, ruling that the AG lacked good cause to file because it could not reasonably believe it would recover at least $3,000 within five years and had not identified a specific asset or conducted sufficient investigation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the MIRA statute does not require the AG to identify a particular asset or its custodian before filing or to perform additional specified investigations, and that the AG's good-faith determination based on available information satisfied the statutory threshold.
In this workers' compensation case, Glennda Taylor, a school bus driver, received an ALJ award of permanent total disability benefits for a back injury sustained on the job, but she died by suicide on the same day the award was issued. Her husband Marvin sought to substitute as a party under section 287.580 to claim the benefits as her surviving dependent, citing the Missouri Supreme Court's Schoemehl decision that unpaid permanent total disability benefits survive to dependents when the claimant's death is unrelated to the work injury. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the ALJ's award without addressing whether the benefits survived Glennda's death. The court held that because the claim was pending when Schoemehl was decided, Marvin was entitled to the benefits as her dependent, reversing the Commission's decision in part and remanding for an award of lifetime permanent total disability benefits to him.