Harold Lowenstein

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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).

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action under Missouri statute brought by the survivors of longtime smoker Barbara Smith against Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, alleging negligence and strict liability product defect claims arising from her development of heart disease after smoking the company's Kool cigarettes. The jury found for the plaintiffs on those claims, awarding $2 million in compensatory damages (later reduced for comparative fault) and $20 million in punitive damages for aggravating circumstances, while rejecting fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed challenges to the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the giving of a comparative fault instruction despite the defendant's withdrawal of that defense, and various rulings on punitive damages, ultimately affirming the judgment in part, reversing in part, and remanding based on whether substantial evidence supported the verdicts and whether the trial court properly exercised discretion over jury instructions and post-trial motions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Robert Million sued Household Retail Services, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. for civil conspiracy and intentional interference with a credit expectancy. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause they asserted was included in credit application materials and a cardholder agreement. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed that denial. The court reasoned that the defendants failed to establish the authenticity of the documents offered as proof of an agreement to arbitrate.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Jennie Williams appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that awarded her permanent partial disability benefits in a case involving the Missouri Department of Corrections. After reviewing the briefs and the record, the court determined that the commission's award contained no error. The court therefore affirmed the final award under Rule 84.16(b). The reasoning supporting the affirmance was set out in a separate memorandum provided to the parties rather than in a published opinion.

labor & employment

In this case, an inmate at a Missouri correctional facility filed a three-count petition alleging negligence by the Department of Corrections that caused him injuries from slipping in a wet area, being struck by a ceiling grate, and slipping in a hallway. The trial court dismissed the entire petition for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal of the dismissal of the first count, the appellate court held that the issue of whether that count was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for offender suits was not properly before it because the trial court had not ruled on the limitations defense. The court further concluded that the dismissal was without prejudice under the applicable rule and therefore was not a final, appealable judgment, as the plaintiff remained able to refile the claim. The appeal was dismissed on those procedural grounds.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a defendant convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison who filed for post-conviction relief. He claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to portions of the prosecution's closing argument that allegedly vouched for the credibility of its primary witness. The court affirmed the denial of relief in a per curiam order citing Rule 84.16(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Raymond Parsons appealing his conviction for stealing a motor vehicle after a jury trial, where he was sentenced to seven years in prison, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish Parsons' guilt as an accomplice. The court reasoned that the totality of circumstances—including Parsons' presence in the recently stolen vehicle, his flight from the crash site, attempts to hide from police, and joint possession of other stolen items—supported an inference that he actively participated in the crime. The jury was entitled to assess credibility and weigh the evidence, and the appellate court deferred to that determination under the applicable standard of review.

criminal law

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between employee Alice Pollock and her employer Berlin-Wheeler, Inc., an employment agency, arising from an agreement under which Pollock was to work full-time placing job candidates in exchange for salary plus commissions on fees she generated. Pollock was terminated without the required thirty days' notice after she failed to report a placement fee she received and converted it to her own use, leading her to sue for unpaid salary, commissions, and moving expenses while the employer counterclaimed for damages including lost commissions and conversion. The trial court awarded a net judgment of $2,162.50 to Berlin-Wheeler, which the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that Pollock's material breach by not disclosing commissions and converting the fee check justified denying her post-termination commissions, while the employer's failure to give notice still entitled her to one month's salary (which was not challenged on cross-appeal), and the trial court could properly treat the employer's claims as offsetting affirmative defenses or counterclaims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Beverly Ann Wells, a nursing home employee, who accepted a $100 check from a resident as reimbursement for personal purchases she made on his behalf. The Division of Aging determined that this constituted misappropriation of the resident's funds under section 198.090.15 and placed her name on the Employee Disqualification List for one year. After an administrative hearing, the Director affirmed the placement, but the circuit court reversed that decision. On appeal, the court reviewed the agency's legal conclusions de novo and held that the Director had misinterpreted the statute, as Wells's acceptance of the check did not amount to misappropriation even though she may have violated separate reporting requirements. The court therefore affirmed the circuit court's reversal of the agency's order and remanded the matter for consideration of Wells's request for attorney fees.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involved the dismissal of a corrections officer by the Missouri Department of Corrections for violating procedures against avoidable contact with offenders after she sent letters to one inmate through another. The Personnel Advisory Board disapproved the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back pay, finding insufficient proof of association with the specific inmate named in the charges and declining to address a retaliation claim; the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the court reversed the PAB decision, holding that the dismissal letter provided adequate notice of the proven avoidable contact with the intermediary inmate, that substantial evidence supported the misconduct, and that the appointing authority's determination that dismissal served the good of the service could not be substituted by the PAB. The case was remanded for the PAB to address the merits of the retaliation defense.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Alejandro Franco-Amador's conviction for second-degree drug trafficking after police found over a kilogram of methamphetamine hidden in the trunk and backseat of a car he was driving on an interstate highway. Franco-Amador, who did not own the vehicle and had met its owner only hours earlier while seeking a ride, was stopped for a traffic violation; officers discovered the drugs concealed with pepper and air freshener after obtaining consent to search. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that factors such as the defendant's nervousness, flight from the scene, the presence of duct tape, and masking odors did not establish that he had the power and intent to exercise dominion or control over the drugs, particularly given his lack of ownership or prior access to the car and possible alternative explanations tied to his immigration status.

criminal law

This case concerned a dispute over the Specified Date for closing a stock purchase agreement between MetLife and General American Mutual Holding Company (GAMHC), an insurance company in rehabilitation, which turned on when a November 10, 1999, court judgment confirming the reorganization plan became final and non-appealable. The rehabilitation court applied the shorter appeal timeline in § 375.630.4 of the Insurance Code, finding the judgment final on November 15, 1999, so that the Specified Date was December 14, 1999, after the last regulatory approval. MetLife argued the general civil appeal statute, § 512.020, and court rules applied instead, extending finality and setting the Specified Date at December 23, 1999. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the proceeding involved an insurance company rehabilitation and no non-parties had standing to appeal under the general statute, the insurance-specific five-day appeal period governed and rendered the judgment final earlier. The court rejected MetLife's alternative claim that the insurance statute conflicted with supreme court rules as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Missouri Department of Social Services seeking reimbursement from the estate of Samuel G. Graham for Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of Graham and his deceased wife under state statutes §§ 473.398 and 473.399. The probate court granted a directed verdict for the estate after the Department presented its evidence, but the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appeals court held that the Department presented sufficient evidence, including testimony from income maintenance and cost recovery witnesses along with exhibits documenting applications, eligibility, billing statements, and payments totaling $29,457.95, to make a submissible case for recovery. The matter was remanded for a new trial.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned two brothers who were equal owners of a corporation operating construction and service divisions; one brother sued for judicial dissolution under Missouri statutes, leading to disputes over dividing shared equipment, inventory, and allocating corporate bills and liabilities. The trial court, acting in equity and assisted by a special master, inventoried assets, implemented the parties' prior agreement where possible, and ordered the division to create two separate entities. On appeal, the court affirmed the asset allocations and the trial court's review of the master's report but reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment addressing release and indemnification provisions. The core reasoning focused on the trial court's proper exercise of discretion in equitable distribution and its independent consideration of evidence under applicable procedural rules.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Keith Thornburg sued Federal Express Corporation and two of its employees after his wife, also an employee, had an affair with her supervisor that led to the end of their marriage and her relocation with their children to another state. He brought claims for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking to impose liability on the employer under respondeat superior. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The court concluded that the facts alleged did not satisfy the required elements of the tort claims against the individual defendants, and without employee liability there could be no derivative employer liability.

family lawtorts & liabilitylabor & employment