Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights[1]

Opinion handed down January 31, 2008[1]

The Missouri Supreme Court held that Missouri Approved Jury Instruction 31.24 "contributing factor" standard can properly be applied at the summary judgment stage of an employment discrimination claim brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act.

Gavan v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Where non-permanent employee was injured in a workplace accident by the acts of permanent co-employees, the non-permanent employee was denied status as a “temporary worker” and consequently denied recovery under the employer’s comprehensive general liability insurance policy.

Bloomquist v. Schneider[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that section 516.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes violated the Commerce Clause because it tolled the statute of limitations with respect to claims against defendants who had been Missouri residents upon the accrual of the cause of action, but moved out of the state before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

State v. Ward[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

Where criminal defendant was charged with and convicted of possession of a controlled substance with an intent to deliver, the trial court correctly prevented defendant from testifying because he refused to take an oath or affirmation, as required by statute.

Vandyne v. Allied Mortgage Capital Corp.[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying Plaintiffs' class definition because it included an improper merit determination and insufficiently definite terms, but agreed with the circuit court’s finding that the mere fact that a class attorney and named plaintiff were related did not amount to a violation of Supreme Court Rule 52.08’s adequacy of representation provision.

Kidde America, Inc. v. Director of Revenue[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008 Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that RSMo §§ 32.068 and 32.069 were not in conflict with RSMo § 143.811 when calculating the rate of interest a taxpayer is entitled for overpaying income tax, because § 143.811 is relevant for determining interest prior to January 1, 2003, while §§ 32.068 and 32.069 are relevant for determining interest on and after that date.

State v. Johnson[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that a capital defendant bears the burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. The dissent argues the burden is on the State since the statute is ambiguous.