Pestka v. State

 Opinion handed down July 26, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

Timothy S. Pestka and Rudy M. Chavez (“Appellants”) appealed the Cole County Circuit Court’s decision denying their request to enjoin the enforcement of HB 150, which the Missouri General Assembly passed during the veto session in September 2015.[1]  Appellants contend that the senate lacked authority to override the governor’s veto during the session because the general assembly can only take up a bill in the September veto session if the governor returned the bill on or after the fifth day before the end of the regular legislative session.[2]  

Parr v. Breeden

Opinion handed down June 7, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

While driving a tractor-trailer during the course of his employment, Kevin Parr was killed after his truck was involved in a single vehicle accident.[1]  After the accident, Mr. Parr’s children and father brought a wrongful death action against three of Mr. Parr’s supervisors.[2]  The plaintiffs alleged that the supervisors breached personal duties they owed to the decedent that were separate and distinct from the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace for all employees.[3]  The circuit court found that the supervisors did not owe a duty beyond the nondelegable duties they owed Mr. Parr as his employer.[4]  The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the existence of a duty imposed by a federal statute creates a duty that is separate and distinct from an employer’s nondelegable duties, and (b) whether an admission of duty by a defendant is binding on a court where no duty would otherwise exist.[5]

Stahl v. Hank’s Cheesecakes, LLC

Opinion handed down May 10, 2016

 The link to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District Opinion

            Hank’s Cheesecakes appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (“Commission”) decision granting unemployment benefits to its terminated employee, Robin Stahl.[1]  Stahl was terminated from her position following an incident in which she slapped the buttocks of a co-worker for making an insensitive comment in front of her and another co-worker. [2]  The Commission found that this conduct did not rise to the level of misconduct that disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits. [3] On appeal, and as a matter of first impression as to whether striking an employee automatically constitutes misconduct, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed.[4]

Nevils v. Group Health Plan, Inc.

Opinion handed down May 3, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

In Nevils v. Group Health Plan, Inc., the Supreme Court of Missouri held for the second time in two years that § 8902(m)(1) of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”) does “not preempt Missouri law prohibiting subrogation of personal injury claims.”[1]  After the court found no preemption in 2014, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) promulgated a regulation providing that FEHBA does preempt state subrogation law, and the Supreme Court of the United States vacated Nevils and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri for reconsideration in light of the new regulation.[2]  On remand, the court gave minimal deference to the OPM’s guidance, holding that the new regulation did not alter its original conclusion that FEHBA does not preempt Missouri law prohibiting subrogation of personal injury claims.[3]

Peters v. Johns

Opinion handed down May 20, 2016 

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

            In Peters v. Johns, the Supreme Court of Missouri resolved the constitutionality of requiring a state representative candidate to register in Missouri for at least two years to be eligible for election.[1] The court ruled with a 4-3 margin that the refusal to register is not an act of “symbolic speech,” and that the requirement does not violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[2]

McGraw v. State

Opinion handed down May 24, 2016

The link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion

Holding the title of “Honorable,” “Justice,” or “Judge,” might enable one to believe that an elected judge is paid commensurate with the noble title.  In reality, however, this is not the case.  Members of the Supreme Court of Missouri, the highest court in the state, are only paid a fraction more than some first year associates at large law firms.[1]  However, in a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Missouri in May 2016, the court matter-of-factly denied elected judges their extra retirement compensation as prescribed to them by means of the Missouri Constitution.[2]  Lacking any type of policy argument, the court struck down the plaintiff-judges’ claims because their arguments relied on an incorrect interpretation of an amendment to the Missouri Constitution.[3]