Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several individuals and two organizations challenged a Missouri law enacted in 2022, House Bill No. 1878 (HB 1878), which amended the state’s voting requirements by mandating that voters present specific forms of photo identification or cast a provisional ballot under certain conditions. The organizations—the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri—along with the individuals, claimed that these provisions unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated equal protection guarantees.Their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that none of the individual plaintiffs had shown an actual or threatened injury, as each had either successfully voted since the law’s enactment or their alleged difficulties were speculative. The court also determined that the organizations had not established standing, either through a diversion of resources or by identifying any specific member adversely affected by the law. Despite these findings, the circuit court proceeded to rule on the merits, concluding the law was constitutional.The Supreme Court of Missouri, which has exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the validity of state statutes, reviewed the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the appellants lacked standing—meaning none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that, because there was no justiciable controversy before the court, the circuit court erred by reaching and deciding the merits of the constitutional claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge. The case was thus resolved solely on the issue of standing. View "Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. State" on Justia Law

In 2022, Missouri enacted new legislation that imposed several restrictions on activities related to voter registration and absentee ballot applications. The law prohibited the payment or compensation of individuals for soliciting voter registration applications unless they were government employees, required anyone who solicited more than ten voter registration applications to register with the state, and mandated that solicitors be at least eighteen years old and registered Missouri voters. Additionally, the law completely banned the solicitation of voters to obtain absentee ballot applications. These provisions affected organizations whose work involves encouraging and assisting individuals in registering to vote and informing them about absentee voting.The Circuit Court of Cole County reviewed a lawsuit brought by two civic organizations challenging these provisions as unconstitutional. The organizations argued the restrictions violated rights to free speech, association, and due process under the Missouri Constitution. The court issued a preliminary injunction, and after trial, permanently enjoined enforcement of the provisions, finding them to be facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech, overbroad, content- and viewpoint-based, and unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded the state had not shown the provisions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutory provisions imposed facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech protected by article I, section 8 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court found the provisions neither served a compelling state interest nor were narrowly tailored, and instead captured substantial amounts of protected speech unrelated to any compelling interest. The judgment declaring the provisions unconstitutional was affirmed. View "State vs. League of Women Voters" on Justia Law

After the results of the 2020 United States census were certified to the governor of Missouri in August 2021, the Missouri General Assembly established new congressional districts in 2022, as required by the state constitution. In September 2025, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), which repealed the 2022 congressional districts and established new ones, even though no new census had been certified. The governor signed HB 1 into law. A group of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of HB 1, arguing that article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution restricts the General Assembly to one redistricting following each decennial census certification.The Circuit Court of Cole County heard the case on stipulated facts and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, finding that HB 1 was a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s legislative authority. The circuit court declared that article III, section 45 does not prevent the General Assembly from redistricting more frequently than once per decade.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the constitutional question de novo. The Court held that article III, section 45 obligates the General Assembly to redistrict upon certification of the decennial census but does not expressly prohibit mid-decade or more frequent congressional redistricting. The Court explained that, absent express constitutional restraint, the General Assembly’s legislative power remains plenary. The Court also found that the word “when” in section 45 acts as a trigger for mandatory redistricting but does not serve as a limitation on the legislature’s authority to redistrict at other times.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, upholding HB 1 as constitutional and concluding that article III, section 45 does not restrict the General Assembly’s power to conduct mid-decade congressional redistricting. View "Luther vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

The case involves an injury sustained by an individual while operating a forklift designed, manufactured, and distributed by a company. The injured party alleged that the forklift’s open operator compartment constituted a defective design, making the product unreasonably dangerous, and asserted that adding features such as a door or bumper would have prevented the accident. To support these claims, the injured party retained an expert witness to testify about the alleged defect and alternative, safer designs.In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, the defendant company filed motions both to exclude the plaintiff’s expert witness and for summary judgment. The court found that the expert’s testimony lacked reliability, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the expert’s opinions were based on reliable principles and methods, or that those methods had been properly applied to the facts. The court noted the absence of relevant testing, peer-reviewed support, or clear connection between the expert’s analysis and the incident. Consequently, the court excluded the expert’s testimony. Without admissible expert evidence to support the defective design claim, the circuit court then granted summary judgment for the company, as there was no genuine issue of material fact.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed only the grant of summary judgment. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert’s testimony under section 490.065, as the plaintiff failed to establish the reliability of the expert’s methods or their application to the case. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that without admissible expert testimony, summary judgment was proper, including as to the punitive damages claim, because the plaintiff could not prevail on the underlying product liability claim. View "Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corp." on Justia Law

Two women, who were never married, were granted joint guardianship of twin girls when the children were very young. After their relationship ended, they continued to share custody through the guardianship. Several years later, both women filed competing adoption petitions. The circuit court granted one woman’s petition, making her the adoptive parent and terminating the guardianship. The other woman’s appeal of the adoption was unsuccessful.While that appeal was pending, the non-adoptive woman filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County seeking third-party custody or, alternatively, visitation rights under section 452.375.5(5). The adoptive parent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing her former partner lacked standing under the statute. The circuit court denied the motion, and the parties later appeared to reach a settlement, resulting in a proposed judgment granting third-party visitation. The adoptive parent objected before the judgment was entered, but the court signed the judgment granting visitation. When the adoptive parent was found to have violated this judgment, the court awarded compensatory visitation and attorney’s fees to the other woman. The adoptive parent appealed both rulings. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the non-adoptive woman had standing and that consent to the visitation agreement was binding.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and held that section 452.375.5(5)(a) does not create an independent cause of action for third-party custody or visitation when custody is not otherwise at issue in an underlying proceeding. The Court determined that a third party may only seek custody or visitation under the statute as part of an already pending custody dispute, not as a stand-alone action following an adoption. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the lower court’s judgments and dismissed the petition and related family access motion. View "In re A.L.P. and S.H.P." on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated in 2021 and the state sought to enhance his sentence by establishing that he was a chronic offender, which requires proof of four or more prior intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs). To support this, the state introduced evidence of four prior offenses, including a 2002 municipal conviction for “driving while intoxicated” under the Joplin city code. The appellant contested the use of this 2002 offense, arguing the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by Missouri law at the time of the current offense.The Circuit Court of Jasper County admitted the 2002 municipal conviction into evidence and found the appellant to be a chronic offender, determining all four prior offenses qualified as IRTOs. The appellant was subsequently convicted by a jury for the current driving while intoxicated offense and sentenced as a chronic offender to seven years’ imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that only three of his prior offenses qualified as IRTOs and that he should have been sentenced as an aggravated offender rather than a chronic offender.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. It held that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 municipal offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, since the record was silent as to the conduct underlying the offense and there was no evidence as to the elements of the municipal ordinance. Consequently, the court vacated the judgment sentencing the appellant as a chronic offender and remanded the case for resentencing as an aggravated offender. View "State v. Peters" on Justia Law

Late at night, a police officer in Jefferson City observed a vehicle behaving suspiciously in a closed business area known for crime. The officer stopped the vehicle, which was driven by James Eggleston with a female passenger. The passenger appeared to be under the influence of narcotics, and Eggleston volunteered that he had an outstanding warrant and did not consent to a search of the vehicle. After arresting Eggleston, the officer contacted a canine unit. The canine alerted to the driver's side, leading officers to search the vehicle and find a bottle containing four baggies of methamphetamine within easy reach of the driver's seat. Additional drug paraphernalia and the passenger’s identification were found on the passenger side.The State charged Eggleston with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Missouri law. Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cole County, the judge found Eggleston guilty and sentenced him to three years in prison. Eggleston appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knowingly possessed the methamphetamine, particularly since it was in a shared compartment and could have belonged to the passenger.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case, applying the statutory definitions of “knowingly” and “possessed” and clarifying that joint possession does not require “additional incriminating evidence” beyond proximity and control. The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the methamphetamine’s location within Eggleston’s reach, his conduct, and other contextual facts, was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude he knowingly possessed the controlled substance. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and rejecting prior case law that imposed heightened burdens in joint possession cases. View "State of Missouri vs. Eggleston" on Justia Law

Amanda Rogers was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after an incident in which she drove a vehicle with a passenger, Seller, who attempted to sell a gun to Informant. Informant notified law enforcement after Seller, a known felon, tried to sell him a firearm and could not provide proof of ownership. Rogers drove Seller to meet Informant; after the attempted sale, Informant described the vehicle, its occupants, and its direction to law enforcement. Trooper Enderle located the vehicle, initiated a stop after backup arrived, and found Rogers acting suspiciously. A subsequent search revealed compatible ammunition on the driver’s side and a firearm within easy reach of both front seats. Rogers denied knowledge of a firearm and refused consent to search. After a canine unit arrived, law enforcement found the firearm in a bucket between the seats.The Circuit Court of Polk County, following a jury verdict of guilty, sentenced Rogers to seven years’ imprisonment and placed her in a long-term treatment program. Rogers moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition, arguing lack of probable cause for the stop and insufficient evidence of knowing possession. The circuit court denied both motions. She appealed, raising the same issues, and the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the case before the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer.The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the state presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude Rogers knowingly possessed the firearm, applying statutory definitions of possession and knowledge, and rejected the requirement for “additional incriminating evidence” in joint possession cases. The Court also found that Trooper Enderle had probable cause to search the vehicle, based on Informant’s tip, corroborating circumstances, and Rogers’ conduct. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. View "State of Missouri vs. Rogers" on Justia Law

The appellant brought a defamation action against two individuals, with whom he had prior romantic relationships. After those relationships ended, one defendant told others that the appellant had raped and abused her, while the other engaged in a broad social media campaign accusing the appellant of stalking, rape, threats, and violent behavior. These statements led to significant consequences for the appellant, including being confronted at his home by an armed group, being forced to leave his residence for months, being excluded from a local coffee shop, losing organizational affiliations and a speaking engagement, and being removed from shared office space.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. At the close of the appellant’s evidence, both defendants moved for directed verdicts, arguing that the appellant had failed to present evidence of reputational harm independent of his own testimony. The circuit court sustained the motions and entered judgment for the defendants, apparently on that sole ground. Four counts against one defendant related to agency were also dismissed; the appellant later abandoned those claims on appeal.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case. It held that a plaintiff in a defamation action is not required to provide independent evidence of reputational harm, and that credible testimony by the plaintiff may suffice if it establishes actual injury to reputation. The court found that the appellant’s testimony regarding the consequences of the defendants’ statements was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find reputational damage. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed with respect to the abandoned agency-based counts, but was vacated as to all other counts. The case was remanded for a new trial on those remaining claims. View "Apperson v. Kaminsky" on Justia Law

Two homeowners purchased a lot in a subdivision that was subject to restrictive covenants, including one prohibiting the installation of solar panels on residences. After their purchase, Missouri’s legislature enacted a statute barring covenants or restrictions that limit or prohibit solar panel installations on rooftops. The homeowners attempted to work with their homeowners’ association to amend the restriction, but the association maintained the ban, later offering only limited permission for panels not visible from the street. The homeowners then sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the enforceability of the covenant and the association’s rule on street-facing panels.The Circuit Court of Greene County denied relief to the homeowners, ruling that the new statute applied only to covenants created after its effective date and that applying it to preexisting covenants would impermissibly impair the contractual rights established before the statute’s enactment. The court found that retrospective application of the law was unconstitutional under Missouri’s constitution.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the judgment de novo. The Court held that the legislative intent and the statute’s language supported applicability to all covenants, including those enacted before the statute’s effective date. The Court determined that, while the statute operates prospectively, it renders prior prohibitions unenforceable from the effective date forward, without violating constitutional prohibitions against retrospective laws or impairing contracts. The Court found that the association’s rule prohibiting street-facing solar panels adversely affected cost and efficiency and could not be enforced under the statute.The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, entered judgment for the homeowners, and held that both the covenant banning solar panels and the rule prohibiting street-facing panels were unenforceable under section 442.404.3. View "Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law