Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose when the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (HB 1) in September 2025, which would repeal the 2022 congressional districts and establish new ones. Organizers opposed to HB 1 submitted a referendum petition to the Secretary of State, meeting both the signature and timing requirements set by the Missouri Constitution. The Secretary of State, however, issued a Certificate of Insufficiency, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting acts passed by the General Assembly, and directed that the petition not be placed on the November 2026 ballot.After this, Richard von Glahn, a proponent of the referendum, filed suit in the Cole County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the Secretary’s decision and prevent implementation of HB 1. The circuit court upheld the Secretary’s determination. Von Glahn appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc granted discretionary transfer to address the important legal issue presented.The Supreme Court of Missouri en banc held that the Missouri Constitution’s article III, section 49, plainly authorizes the people to approve or reject by referendum “any act of the general assembly,” including congressional redistricting legislation. The Court found that none of the exceptions in article III, section 52(a) applied to HB 1 and rejected arguments that redistricting laws are exempt from referendum. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, ordered the Secretary to certify the petition as sufficient, place it on the November 2026 ballot, and enjoined use of the HB 1 districts unless and until approved by voters. The congressional districts established in 2022 remain in effect for the 2026 election unless HB 1 is approved and takes effect thereafter. View "von Glahn vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Petition supporters submitted an initiative petition proposing to amend the Missouri Constitution, having followed the statutory process for approval and certification of the ballot title by the Secretary of State. After signature gathering and timely submission, the Secretary of State was required to determine the petition’s compliance with the Missouri Constitution and Missouri statutes and to issue a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency. Instead, shortly before the deadline, the Secretary issued a certificate declaring the petition insufficient without specifying any constitutional defects, vacated the original ballot title, and issued a new ballot title.The petition supporters, all qualified Missouri voters, challenged the Secretary’s actions in the Cole County Circuit Court, seeking reversal of the insufficiency certification and reinstatement of the original ballot title. The circuit court upheld the Secretary’s decision. The petition supporters appealed, and due to the importance of the legal issues, the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc took discretionary jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Missouri en banc found that the Secretary failed to comply with statutory requirements by not stating any reasons for insufficiency in his certificate, thus preserving nothing for appellate review. The Court further held that hypothetical constitutional violations, which might arise only if the amendment were adopted, are not ripe for pre-election review. The Court rejected the Secretary’s claims regarding single-article and single-subject violations as meritless and determined he lacked authority to vacate the certified ballot title and issue a new one. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, ordered the Secretary to issue a certificate of sufficiency for the initiative petition, to place it on the November 2026 ballot with the original ballot title, and to take all necessary steps to ensure its inclusion before September 8, 2026. View "Harris vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Glendale Shooting Club acquired property adjacent to the Racine family in 1976, intending to operate a firing range. The Racines brought a nuisance action against Glendale, claiming persistent gunshot noise affected their property. In 1987, the Franklin County Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction that restricted Glendale’s range operations, limiting the number of competitions, shooters, and hours of use, as well as restricting the use of firearms over a certain caliber. Both parties appealed, but the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction. In 1989, the Landolts purchased the Racine property. Subsequently, Missouri enacted section 537.294, granting firearm ranges immunity from noise-based nuisance actions.Glendale repeatedly sought relief from the injunction, arguing that the statutory change and modifications to the range mitigated the nuisance. After extensive litigation, including a period where further court action was barred by settlement, Glendale moved to set aside the injunction. The Franklin County Circuit Court granted relief, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri in Glendale Shooting Club, Inc. v. Landolt ("Glendale I") found the court had failed to properly weigh the equities and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, after a bench trial, the circuit court again set aside the injunction, finding both the statutory change and physical modifications to the range rendered continued enforcement inequitable.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the circuit court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Court held that while a change in law alone is not sufficient to set aside a judgment, the circuit court’s alternative finding—that factual changes had rendered the injunction inequitable—was supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dissolving the 1987 injunction. View "Glendale Shooting Club, Inc. v. Landolt" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the death of her husband. She was sentenced to life without parole and 30 years to be served concurrently. While her direct appeal was still pending, she filed a pro se motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 to set aside her conviction. The circuit court later appointed counsel for her postconviction proceeding. After the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction and issued its mandate, appointed counsel entered an appearance but did not file an amended motion until after the deadline established by Rule 29.15.The Circuit Court of Douglas County found both the pro se and amended motions were untimely but determined appointed counsel had abandoned the appellant by failing to timely file the amended motion. The court proceeded to deny relief on the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims asserted in the amended motion, including failure to call an expert on psychological shock and failure to request a competency evaluation, without holding an evidentiary hearing.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the appeal. It held that the pro se motion was timely under the applicable version of Rule 29.15, as it was deemed filed immediately after the appellate mandate. However, the amended motion was untimely. The Court concluded the motion court properly found abandonment by appointed counsel, as the tardiness was solely counsel’s fault and supported by the record. In such cases, the amended motion should be treated as timely and the court may review its merits without remand for an abandonment hearing.On the merits, the Supreme Court of Missouri held the motion court did not clearly err in denying both ineffective assistance claims without an evidentiary hearing because the record refuted any showing of prejudice or need for further factual development. The judgment denying postconviction relief was affirmed. View "Young vs. State" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in July 2021 involving John Otis, a victim, and a minor child. Otis became angry while riding in a vehicle, leading to a series of violent acts. After initially driving away, Otis returned and struck the victim twice with the car, pinning her against a gas station building. He then assaulted her with a metal pole, punched her, and stomped on her until she lost consciousness. The child was present throughout the events and remained with the victim until help arrived. The victim suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized.The State charged Otis with three counts of first-degree domestic assault, armed criminal action, and endangering the welfare of a child. The Circuit Court of St. Charles County found Otis to be a persistent offender based on prior felony convictions in Missouri and Illinois, and sentenced him to life in prison for each domestic assault count, 15 years for armed criminal action, and seven years for endangering the welfare of a child. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. A jury found Otis guilty of all charges. Otis appealed, challenging the persistent offender determination, the sufficiency of evidence supporting that finding, and the jury instructions.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed Otis’s appeal. The Court held that although recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Erlinger v. United States requires a jury, not a judge, to decide facts that increase penalty ranges, Otis’s claim was not preserved and did not warrant plain error review because he failed to demonstrate manifest injustice. The Court found sufficient evidence supported Otis’s persistent offender status, particularly regarding the Illinois felony conviction. It also declined to review the jury instruction claim for plain error. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "State vs. Otis" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant, alongside two accomplices, confronted a victim outside his home, robbed him at gunpoint, and shot him multiple times. The victim survived after extensive medical treatment and identified the defendant in a police lineup. The defendant was charged with several offenses, including first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, armed criminal action, second-degree burglary, and stealing. At trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion for acquittal on the burglary and stealing charges, and the jury found him guilty on the remaining four counts.Following the jury verdict, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis held a sentencing hearing. During this proceeding, the court referenced the defendant’s prior involvement in an unrelated carjacking case, in which the defendant had been acquitted of all charges that were not dismissed. Defense counsel did not object to these remarks. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to consecutive prison terms totaling fifty years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court committed plain error by considering conduct from the acquitted charges without proof by a preponderance of the evidence.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the defendant’s claim under the plain error standard because it was not preserved by objection at sentencing. The court held that the circuit court did not commit plain error in referencing the defendant’s prior acquittals, finding that the judge’s remarks were insufficient to show the sentence was based on unproven conduct. The court distinguished prior case law limiting the consideration of acquitted conduct to jury sentencing and found no manifest injustice. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "State vs. Harris" on Justia Law

Michael Holmes was convicted in 2006 of federal drug charges based on testimony from two St. Louis City police officers. After internal investigations revealed repeated misconduct by the officers, Holmes’ conviction was vacated in 2011 and the charges were dismissed, leading to his release after five years in prison. Holmes then sued the officers and the Board of Police Commissioners in federal court for civil rights violations and state torts. The federal district court dismissed the state tort claims against the board on sovereign immunity grounds and granted summary judgment to the board on the section 1983 claims, but the claims against the officers went to trial. A federal jury found the officers liable under section 1983 and awarded Holmes $2.5 million.Following this judgment, Holmes sought a declaration in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis that either the State of Missouri or the City of St. Louis was obligated to indemnify the officers and pay the judgment. The circuit court initially ruled the State was responsible for payment from the state legal expense fund. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the State was not obligated to pay under the applicable statute and remanded the case for a determination of the City’s liability.On remand, Holmes and the City filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, finding Holmes had not established the City’s liability. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and held that Holmes failed to demonstrate that the City waived its sovereign immunity through express statutory consent or a recognized common law exception. As a result, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in favor of the City, holding the City is not obligated to indemnify the officers for the federal judgment. View "Holmes vs. Zellers" on Justia Law

A resident of St. Louis brought a class action lawsuit against the city, seeking a refund of fees paid for solid waste services. The plaintiff alleged that these fees were collected under the mistaken belief that the city was providing separate recycling and yard waste collection, which the city either failed to provide or did not provide consistently. The city had implemented a monthly solid waste services fee in 2010, increased it in 2017, and included the fee in residents’ water bills. Although the city at times collected recyclables and yard waste separately, it often did not, and ultimately terminated the program in 2025. The plaintiff argued that the city unjustly retained fees for services it did not render, seeking damages for herself and other residents.The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denied the city’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s claim for “money had and received” could proceed. The city then sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Court of Appeals, which was denied. The city subsequently sought relief from the Supreme Court of Missouri.The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the city is protected by sovereign immunity and that section 432.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes bars the claim. The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not plead facts that would establish an exception to sovereign immunity for her claim and that no statutory or recognized common law exception applied. The court also concluded that the proprietary function exception did not apply, as solid waste collection is a governmental function. The court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, directing that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed. View "State ex rel. City of St. Louis vs. Whyte" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who had filed claims with the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation for compensation from the tort victims’ compensation fund during the 2022 claims period alleged that the division failed to pay the full amount of compensation stipulated by statute. The division determined that each claimant was entitled to an award, but the payments were prorated at 40 percent of their respective full values due to the amount appropriated by the Missouri General Assembly being less than the total value of awards. The claimants contended the division should have based the proration on the total amount of money in the fund, not just on the appropriated amount, which would have resulted in a higher payout percentage.The claimants initiated lawsuits against the division, the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and associated officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Cole County found in favor of the defendants, holding that the lawsuits were barred by sovereign immunity and that the claimants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The circuit court also ruled, in the alternative, that the defendants’ interpretation of the relevant statute prevailed.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the “sue and be sued” language in the enabling statutes for the division and commission did not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for this type of claim. The statutes governing the fund did not permit the claimants’ action, as the legislature explicitly barred claims against the state for unpaid or underpaid awards due to lack of appropriations. Additionally, the court found that claimants failed to exhaust the specific administrative review process provided by statute, which is the exclusive method for challenging such decisions. View "Jones vs. Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission" on Justia Law

In August 2025, the governor of Missouri issued a proclamation calling for an extraordinary legislative session. The session was convened to address two issues: establishing new congressional districts and changing the initiative petition process. The governor explained that the legislature had adjourned without enacting new district boundaries, which could expose the state to legal challenges, and that changes to the initiative petition process were needed to address concerns about foreign influence and voter confusion. During this extraordinary session, the legislature passed a new congressional map and proposed a constitutional amendment related to initiative petitions.On the day the session was to begin, the NAACP and two individuals filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cole County, seeking a declaration that the governor’s proclamation did not state an “extraordinary occasion” as required by article IV, section 9 of the Missouri Constitution. They also sought to enjoin the session and later the implementation of the enacted measures. The circuit court, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of the state officials, finding that the governor had constitutional authority to call the extraordinary session and that the question was a political one, best decided by the governor.The Supreme Court of Missouri, reviewing the circuit court’s declaratory judgment, affirmed the decision. The court held that article IV, section 9 vests the governor with discretion to determine when an extraordinary occasion has arisen and to call an extraordinary session accordingly. The court rejected the argument that the governor’s discretion is limited by an objective definition of “extraordinary,” finding that neither the constitutional text nor its historical context imposed such a restriction. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County was affirmed. View "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri State Conference vs. Kehoe" on Justia Law