Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Haggard v. Division of Employment Security[1]

Opinion handed down Nov. 20, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion
Where employer challenged the Division of Employment Security in front of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and where the Division of Employment Security was represented by a non-lawyer, the Division of Employment Security was in error but the error did not warrant reversal.

State v. Taylor[1]

Opinion handed down November 20, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is not an element of a criminal offense thereby abrogating cases that required venue to be proven by the State, and also held that venue objections must be raised prior to trial.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Clevenger v. Oliver Insurance Agency[1]

Opinion handed down October 30, 2007.
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed a jury award for the Appellants and held that they were not entitled to recovery under the equitable theory of promissory estoppel because equitable relief cannot lie where a party has an adequate remedy at law.

Edwards v. Gerstein[1]

Opinion handed down October 30, 2007

Where a chiropractor sued a state regulatory board for gross negligence and malicious prosecution, the Missouri Supreme Court held that, by virtue of the language of the governing statute, the board did not enjoy quasi-judicial immunity from the gross negligence claim.

Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services v. Little Hills Healthcare[1]

Opinion handed down October 30, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Administrative Hearing Commission correctly determined that the Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services’ method of calculating “estimated Medicaid days” for Medicaid providers constituted a rule subject to the rule promulgation requirements of the Missouri Administrative Law Act.

State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley[1]

Opinion handed down October 30, 2007

The Supreme Court held that venue in a tort cause of action is determined by RSMo § 508.010.4, where the injury occurred, and not RSMo § 508.050, where the municipal corporation is located.

State ex rel. Office of the Public Counsel v. The Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri[1]

Opinion handed down October 30, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Office of Public Counsel was entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the Public Service Commission to vacate its December 29, 2006 approval and January 1, 2007 implementation of Empire District Electric Company's proposed rate tariffs because the Commission abused its discretion when it failed to provide Public Counsel with a reasonable period of time to seek review of the order.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Trout v. State[1]

Opinion handed down July 19, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held amended RSMo §§ 115.342 and 115.350, candidate disqualification, did not violate Art. III, § 21 Original Purpose requirement or Art. III, § 23 Clear Title and Single Purpose requirements. Amended RSMo § 132.032, campaign contribution reform, was entirely invalid and a Supplemental Opinion reenacted the pre-amended version to apply prospectively to former candidates as of July 19, 2007, and the Missouri Ethics Commission was to determine the application of the ruling to current candidates.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Glass v. State[1]

Opinion handed down July 6, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the motion court did not clearly err in granting Glass’ motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to call as witnesses during the penalty phase of Glass’ trial his medical doctor, former teachers, probation officers and certain experts in order to present mitigating evidence on his behalf.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Ethridge v. TeirOne Bank[1]

Opinion handed down June 26, 2007

Where husband and wife owned land as tenants by the entirety, and where deed of trust listed only the husband as “Borrower”, deed of trust did not convey a valid lien on the wife’s interest in the property even though she signed the deed of trust.

State ex rel. McDonald's Corp. v. Midkiff[1]

Opinion handed down June 26, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held that pursuant to RSMo § 508.040 venue in Jackson County was improper because the causes of action accrued in Webster and Taney Counties and because the McDonald's Corporation's Jackson County franchisees were not offices or agents for the transaction of McDonald's Corporation's usual and customary business.