Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc.[1]
Opinion handed down August 4, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the voluntary payment doctrine was not available as a defense to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.[2] When a plaintiff pays money to a defendant due to the defendant’s violation of the Act, allowing the defendant to use this doctrine would circumvent the Act’s purpose of protecting consumers and “regulat[ing] the marketplace to the advantage of those traditionally thought to have unequal bargaining power as well as those who may fall victim to unfair business practices.”[3]

State of Missouri v. Robert M. Oliver
Opinion handed down August 4, 2009 [FN 1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized without a warrant was not clearly erroneous because of the inevitable discovery doctrine and that the subsequent warrant to search the items was not invalid because, regardless of any alleged impermissible evidence in the supporting affidavit, the affidavit was supported by sufficient independent probable cause. Further, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions on counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and promoting child pornography.

State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC v. State Tax Commission[1]
Opinion handed down August 4, 2009.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the State Tax Commission of Missouri could require a complaining taxpayer to provide evidence of the true market value of the properties in dispute, that the tax commission is not bound to accept the true market value originally calculated by the assessor, and that, while the assessor cannot advocate for a higher assessed value than the one he determined for the relevant assessment period, he is free to put forth evidence of higher true market value in defense of a discrimination claim.

Weigand v. Edwards
Opinion handed down August 4, 2009[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a father who owed more than $10,000 in child support had to post a bond for the owed amount before he could petition the courts for modification of child custody. The court found that the statute requiring a bond in the full amount owed does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the United States or Missouri Constitutions under a balancing of interests test. Likewise, the court found that the statute is not an unreasonable or arbitrary barrier in violation of the open courts provision of the Missouri Constitution. The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Edward’s petition.

Jones v. Mid-Century Insurance
Opinion handed down June 30, 2009[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri addressed whether a particular car insurance policy reduced the amount an insured motorist could recover from an accident with an underinsured individual. The court looked at whether this amount was reduced by deducting the amount the insured motorist received from the underinsured individual from the coverage limit of the insurance policy or by deducting the amount received from the motorist’s total damages and then applying the policy’s coverage limit. The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that the particular insurance contract deducted the amount received from the motorist’s total damages and then applied the policy’s coverage limit. The reasoning behind the court’s holding is not clear because, while the court appears to rely on the proposition that inconsistencies in an insurance contract are resolved in favor of the insured, the court asserts that the contract can be interpreted in a manner that gives meaning to all subsections of the contract.

Miller v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission[1]
Opinion handed down June 30, 2009
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a worker's injury, suffered while at work but not caused by the work itself, did not arise out of his employment and therefore did not entitle him to workers' compensation benefits.