Opinion handed down January 13, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement found in a nursing home admission contract did not bind a plaintiff in a wrongful death action against the nursing home because a wrongful death claim is not "derived through" an underlying tort claim of the decedent.[2] The lawsuit, therefore, could proceed without arbitration. The holding clarified a previous decision where the Court stated that, for the purpose of venue, a wrongful death claim is not a new cause of action but one "derivative of the underlying tortious acts."[3]
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bechtel v. Missouri Department of Social Services[1]
Opinion handed down January 13, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
I. Introduction
In January, 2009, the Missouri Supreme Court found that a provision of the legislatively overhauled PersonalCare Assistance (PCA) program, which excluded individuals who had a legal guardian appointed for reasons of mental disability violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Appellant, a woman with a disability who had received benefits under the PCA program before the change, was subsequently denied PCA benefits after the amendment’s passage. The Court did not decide whether funding Appellant received under the Missouri Health Net program was a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
I. Introduction
In January, 2009, the Missouri Supreme Court found that a provision of the legislatively overhauled PersonalCare Assistance (PCA) program, which excluded individuals who had a legal guardian appointed for reasons of mental disability violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Appellant, a woman with a disability who had received benefits under the PCA program before the change, was subsequently denied PCA benefits after the amendment’s passage. The Court did not decide whether funding Appellant received under the Missouri Health Net program was a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Kesler-Ferguson v. Hy-Vee, Inc.[1]
Opinion handed down December 16, 2008[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held: (1) a trial court, when ruling on a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike, may assess the credibility and demeanor of the striking party’s explanation to determine whether the explanation is pretexual; and (2) the trial court’s determinations are dependent on its evaluation of credibility and demeanor in the courtroom at the time of the challenge and should be afforded wide deference.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held: (1) a trial court, when ruling on a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike, may assess the credibility and demeanor of the striking party’s explanation to determine whether the explanation is pretexual; and (2) the trial court’s determinations are dependent on its evaluation of credibility and demeanor in the courtroom at the time of the challenge and should be afforded wide deference.
In re Van Orden[1]
Opinion handed down December 16, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that the “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof in civil commitment proceedings for sexually violent predators is constitutional. The Court found that the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which was required prior to the 2006 amendment to Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, is inappropriate for a civil commitment proceeding.[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that the “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof in civil commitment proceedings for sexually violent predators is constitutional. The Court found that the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which was required prior to the 2006 amendment to Missouri’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, is inappropriate for a civil commitment proceeding.[1]
State v. Latall[1]
Opinion handed down December 16, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held: (1) the defendant met his burden of production by introducing evidence that he had good cause for not paying child support owed to his child’s mother; and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked good cause for his failure to pay, thus, overturning his conviction for criminal nonsupport.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held: (1) the defendant met his burden of production by introducing evidence that he had good cause for not paying child support owed to his child’s mother; and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked good cause for his failure to pay, thus, overturning his conviction for criminal nonsupport.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Great Southern Bank v. Director of Revenue[1]
Opinion handed down November 4, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The "taken in trade" provision of Missouri tax law exempts a party from a sale or use tax on a newly acquired asset up to the value of the traded-in asset. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Missouri strictly construed the exemption and held that a transaction by Great Southern Bank did not qualify as a tax-exempt trade because it was a mere legal fiction created to minimize taxation.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The "taken in trade" provision of Missouri tax law exempts a party from a sale or use tax on a newly acquired asset up to the value of the traded-in asset. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Missouri strictly construed the exemption and held that a transaction by Great Southern Bank did not qualify as a tax-exempt trade because it was a mere legal fiction created to minimize taxation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)