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.

Ocello v. Koster[1]

Opinion handed down November 15, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

A group of adult oriented businesses and Missouri residents challenged recent additions to the Missouri statutes that restrict certain kinds of sexually oriented businesses. The Supreme Court of Missouri, taking the appeal directly from a judgment on the pleadings for defendants at the trial court level, upheld the regulations as reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that were consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

A.E.B. v. T.B.[1]

Opinion handed down October 25, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the trial court lacked authority to order the mother in an initial child custody action to relocate back to a tri-county area in Missouri. The court held that while Revised Statutes of Missouri § 452.377 provides for relocation order procedures, it is inapplicable since it only applies to the modification of an existing child custody and visitation order.

Shirley Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo.[1]

Opinion issued October 5, 2011
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

In this case, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Manchester, Missouri ordinance regulating funeral protests. While the Court determined the law was unconstitutional under Eighth Circuit precedent, it noted that the Sixth Circuit recently upheld a similar law. In a concurring opinion, Judge Diane E. Murphy suggested that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions might recommend a different analytical approach.

Simpson v. Simpson[1]

Opinion handed down October 4, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Mr. Simpson (Husband) appealed the dismissal of his motion to terminate maintenance arguing that the statutory presumption created by Revised Statutes of Missouri § 452.370, that maintenance terminates upon remarriage of the recipient, was not overcome by the written agreement between him and his wife (Wife), because it did not expressly waive the presumption. The Supreme Court of Missouri disagreed, holding that the express language is unnecessary so long as the writing between the parties extends the obligation, expressly or by implication.

Wehrenberg, Inc. v. Director of Revenue[1]

Opinion handed down October 4, 2011.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Revised Statutes of Missouri § 144.014, which imposed a one percent state sales tax on the sale of food items that can be purchased with food stamps, did not apply to Wehrenberg, Inc.’s concession sales in its movie theaters. The court reasoned that because the federal food stamp program defined food as “any food product for home consumption,” that Wehrenberg’s concession sales did not meet this definition.