Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc.[1]

Opinion handed down April 21, 2011
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Applebee’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Department of Labor’s (DOL) interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as contained in the Wage and Hour Division’s Field Operations Handbook (Handbook), establishing conditions for when employers could use the alternative minimum wage for tipped employees, was reasonable, persuasive, and entitled to deference.[2]

Debaliviere Place Ass’n v. Veal[1]

Opinion handed down April 12, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a dissolved neighborhood association could transfer its rights to collect assessments from property owners to a new neighborhood association with the same name because the transfer was an appropriate part of the winding up process of the dissolved association.

State v. Bowman[1]

Opinion handed down April 12, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Gregory Bowman was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder.[2] At the sentencing phase, the jury found six aggravating factors, and the trial court imposed the death penalty accordingly.[3] Bowman appealed the conviction and death sentence to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[4] The Court upheld the conviction but reversed the death sentence.[5] The majority reversed on grounds that during sentencing, the jury considered invalid factors; namely, two previous Illinois murder convictions which were later reversed. Judge Wolff, concurring in part and dissenting in part, engaged in a proportionality review based on Section 565.035 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri; this review led to the same result and brought to light a number of issues that demonstrate the room for error existing in death penalty cases. Given the finality of the death penalty, efforts should be made to decrease room for error as much as humanly possible.

Webb v. State[1]

Opinion handed down March 29, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri in Webb v. State adopted a longstanding lower court rule granting evidentiary hearings to defendants claiming ineffective assistance of counsel after having pled guilty allegedly due to misinformation regarding parole eligibility. However, the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky may have far greater implications for defense counsels’ traditional duty to inform clients of plea consequences.

Utility Service Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus. Relations[1]

Opinion handed down March 1, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Missouri’s Prevailing Wage Act governs the payment of wages to workers engaged in public works’ projects. This remedial legislation ensures fair compensation and protects those individuals involved in construction – not maintenance – of public structures. This case concerns a contractor, Utility Service, Inc. (“Utility Service”), that was hired by Monroe City, Missouri to care for the city’s water storage tank and tower structure, add a safety structure, and thoroughly clean and inspect the unit. After entering into the contract, Utility Service contacted the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (“Department”) to confirm that their contract with Monroe City did not require the payment of prevailing wages. However, the Department disagreed with the company’s assessment, arguing that the work performed on the water storage tank and tower constituted “construction” under the Prevailing Wage Act. The trial court granted the Utility Service a declaratory judgment against the Department that the work was merely “maintenance.” The Western District Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer and reversed, finding that Utility Service’s contract with Monroe City involved “construction” work and therefore required the payment of prevailing wages.

In re Foreclosures of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes by Action in rem Collector of Revenue[1]

Opinion issued March 1, 2011
Link to Missouri Supreme Court Opinion

On appeal from a decision by the St. Louis City Circuit Court, the Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the confirmation judgment affirming a tax sale of the petitioner’s land. The court held that sending notice by mail to the address listed for the property did not violate petitioners’ due process rights even though the property was vacant and mail was not being delivered to that location. Additionally, because the petitioner failed to present any evidence that the sheriff knew or should have known that notice of tax sale was ineffective, the sheriff was not required to take any additional steps to notify the owner.