Opinion handed down February 24, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that eight counts of a nine-count petition challenging the constitutional validity of the 2005 amendments to Missouri’s workers’ compensation statutes were neither justiciable nor ripe for review. Regarding the remaining count, the Court held that the amendments removed certain injuries previously covered by workers’ compensation from the scope of the workers’ compensation system, and workers suffering such injuries may now seek compensation for those injuries from their employers at common law.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Roberts v. State[1]
Opinion handed down February 10, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a trial court decision rejecting a defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The defendant’s motion stemmed from an alleged misunderstanding in the negotiation of his plea agreement. In its decision, the Court voiced a disfavored view of group pleas, holding that the defendant’s appeal would have failed but for the fact that his plea was entered in a group plea with eight other unrelated defendants. In dicta, the Court indicated that group plea mechanisms, often used to promote judicial economy, are disfavored because they may be less likely to fulfill due process requirements. Though it stopped short of invalidating the practice, the decision suggests the Supreme Court of Missouri and other Missouri appellate courts will analyze motions for post-conviction relief derived from a group plea setting more closely in the future.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a trial court decision rejecting a defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The defendant’s motion stemmed from an alleged misunderstanding in the negotiation of his plea agreement. In its decision, the Court voiced a disfavored view of group pleas, holding that the defendant’s appeal would have failed but for the fact that his plea was entered in a group plea with eight other unrelated defendants. In dicta, the Court indicated that group plea mechanisms, often used to promote judicial economy, are disfavored because they may be less likely to fulfill due process requirements. Though it stopped short of invalidating the practice, the decision suggests the Supreme Court of Missouri and other Missouri appellate courts will analyze motions for post-conviction relief derived from a group plea setting more closely in the future.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla[1]
Opinion handed down Jan. 27, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutory provision requiring a parent to post a bond prior to filing a petition to modify a child custody order is not jurisdictional in nature.[1] This holding abrogates a prior case, Miller v. Miller,[2] which determined that the statutory condition is a matter of personal jurisdiction.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutory provision requiring a parent to post a bond prior to filing a petition to modify a child custody order is not jurisdictional in nature.[1] This holding abrogates a prior case, Miller v. Miller,[2] which determined that the statutory condition is a matter of personal jurisdiction.
State v. Teer[1]
Opinion handed down January 27, 2009[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri invalidated the sentence received by a defendant convicted of manslaughter because after the case had been submitted to the jury, the state amended the charges to allege that the defendant was also a prior felony offender, in contravention of statutory procedure. Because the prior offender status led to a longer sentence, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the action constituted prejudicial error and reversed the sentencing.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri invalidated the sentence received by a defendant convicted of manslaughter because after the case had been submitted to the jury, the state amended the charges to allege that the defendant was also a prior felony offender, in contravention of statutory procedure. Because the prior offender status led to a longer sentence, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the action constituted prejudicial error and reversed the sentencing.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lawrence v. Beverly Manor[1]
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]
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]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)