Opinion handed down December 20, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (the Railroad) petitioned the Supreme Court of Missouri for mandamus relief from a protective order entered by the trial court, which barred discovery of an employee’s psychiatric treatment records in that employee’s underlying personal injury action against the Railroad. The Supreme Court of Missouri granted the Railroad a permanent writ based on the fact that the trial court abused its discretion in holding that discovery of a psychiatrist’s records can be wholly excluded when the plaintiff only claims physical rather than psychological injury. The court held that the discovery sought was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the subject of the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Hargis v. JLB Corp.[1]
Opinion handed down December 20, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a mortgage broker business did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law when it gathered information necessary to prepare[2] a note and mortgage or deed of trust, and then subsequently provided that information to third parties who prepared these legal documents. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment was not necessarily predicated on the finding that a mortgage broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a mortgage broker business did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law when it gathered information necessary to prepare[2] a note and mortgage or deed of trust, and then subsequently provided that information to third parties who prepared these legal documents. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment was not necessarily predicated on the finding that a mortgage broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Cooper v. State[1]
Opinion handed down December 6, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
Cooper pleaded guilty to two criminal offenses. His plea agreement, which included a favorable sentencing recommendation, required that he waive his right to seek post-conviction relief. He subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The primary issue was whether Cooper's waiver was rendered involuntary because his defense counsel had a conflict of interest in advising Cooper to waive potential claims concerning her effectiveness. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that because Cooper knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his post-conviction rights, his motion filed pursuant to Rule 24.035 must be dismissed.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
Cooper pleaded guilty to two criminal offenses. His plea agreement, which included a favorable sentencing recommendation, required that he waive his right to seek post-conviction relief. He subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The primary issue was whether Cooper's waiver was rendered involuntary because his defense counsel had a conflict of interest in advising Cooper to waive potential claims concerning her effectiveness. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that because Cooper knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his post-conviction rights, his motion filed pursuant to Rule 24.035 must be dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)