State ex rel. Garcia v. Goldman [1]

Opinion handed down July 16, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a seven-year period between when the defendant was indicted and when he was arrested for first degree assault violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, reasoning that too many witnesses and too many years had slipped away for the state to show that the defense was unimpaired.

Vaca v. Missouri[1]

Opinion handed down June 15, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a criminal appellant’s defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the sentencing phase of a trial when he failed to consider calling a mental health expert to testify even though the counsel was apprised of the jury’s interest in appellant’s mental condition during the guilt phase. The court additionally held that the defense strategy of linking the defendant to a fourth robbery for which he had not been charged was reasonable, and, therefore, defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective on this point. The court determined that appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief should have been granted in part. Ultimately the judgment was upheld in part, remanded in part, and reversed in part.

Anderson v. Durham D & M, L.L.C.[1]

Opinion handed down May 26, 2010
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling of a United States Court for the Western District of Missouri, granting summary judgment for a bus company accused of maintaining a racially hostile work environment and of discriminating against an employee because of his age and race.

Hayes v. Price[1]

Opinion handed down May 25, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the trial court erred in submitting a comparable fault instruction because the defendant in this motor vehicle accident suit did not present evidence that the plaintiff was able to take evasive measures to avoid the accident. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest. The plaintiff’s offer of settlement did not comply with section 408.040.21 because it included a demand for production of documents and statements from third parties.

State v. Williams[1]

Opinion handed down May 25, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri once again reinforced the standard that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense when he may be acquitted of a more serious offense and convicted on the lesser offense. Further, the court reemphasized that affirmative evidence is not required on the defendant’s part for such an instruction and that the jury may make any inferences from the evidence, even if that means believing some parts and disbelieving other parts of the evidence presented by either side.

Public Water Supply District No. 3 of Laclede County v. City of Lebanon [1]

--> Opinion handed down May 14, 2010
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals examined 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) which protects rural districts’ utilities financed by a federal loan from competition with surrounding municipalities by not allowing municipalities to extend service to coverage within the area covered by the district. The Eighth Circuit held that the City of Lebanon, Missouri did not violate § 1926 by continuing to provide sewer and water services to pre-existing customers within the District’s boundaries. The court limited the services protected under § 1926(b) to those that are financed by the federal loan. Additionally, the court held that even though a developer or customer may not want to receive services from a rural district, if those services are available at a reasonable cost, the rural district is entitled to the customers.