Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court overruling the motion to intervene as a matter of right filed by St. Louis and Jackson counties (the Counties), holding that the circuit court erred in overruling the Counties' motion to intervene as a matter of right.Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Department of Health and Senior Services. The circuit court ultimately declared that 19 C.S.R. 20-20.050(3) was constitutionally invalid. Several entities filed motions to intervene, including the Counties. The circuit court overruled all motions to intervene. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding that the circuit court erred in denying intervention where the motions were timely filed, the counties had an interest in the subject matter of the action, disposition of the action would impede their interests, and the existing parties no longer adequately represented their interest. View "Robinson v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ it issued granting Monsanto Company's petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus requiring the St. Louis circuit court to transfer venue of five of the six plaintiffs' claims, holding that Missouri law compelled this result.Plaintiffs brought this action claiming that they were injured as a result of exposure to a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto Company and seeking monetary damages. Monsanto filed a motion to transfer venue as to five of the six plaintiffs in this case to St. Louis County but failed to file a motion to transfer in the six plaintiff's case The circuit court subsequently consolidated Plaintiffs' individual claims. Monsanto filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that venue was inappropriate in St. Louis Valley. The circuit court overruled the motion, after which Monsanto sought relief by way of mandamus or prohibition. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.5(1) mandated that venue shall be where Monsanto's registered agent was located as of filing - St. Louis County. View "State ex rel. Monsanto Co. v. Honorable Mullen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Public Service Commission granting the joint application of Missouri-American Water Company and DCM Land LLC for variances from Missouri-American Water Company's tariff absent explicit language in the traffic allowing for variances, holding that the Commission did not have the authority to grant the variance.Water Company and DCM sought three variances from the tariff, which governed the funding of water main extensions. Specifically, the parties sought variances from the language of Rules 23.A.39 and 23.C.6 in the tariff. The Commission granted the requested variances after finding that good cause existed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because there was no language in the rules allowing for a variance, the Commission lacked the authority to grant such variances as those sought in this case. View "In re Joint Application of Missouri-American Water Co. & DCM Land, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court making permanent a writ of mandamus ordering Attorney General Andrew Bailey to approve fiscal note summaries for eleven proposed initiative petitions Dr. Anna Fitz-James had filed with Secretary of State John Ashcroft and to forward notice of that approval to State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) nothing in Mo. Rev. Stat. 116.175 gives the Attorney General authority to question the Auditor's assessment of the fiscal impact of a proposed petition, and the Attorney General's authority extends only to reviewing the "legal content and form" of the fiscal notes and summaries prepared by the Auditor; (2) the circuit court properly found there was no defect in the legal form and content of the fiscal note summaries prepared by the Auditor concerning the proposed initiative petitions; and (3) therefore, the Attorney General's refusal to perform the duty of approving those summaries could not be justified. View "State ex rel. Fitz-James v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Missouri Mining Commission awarding attorney fees and expenses in favor of Fowler Land Company and the Margaret Leist Revocable Trust (collectively, Landowners) after Landowners prevailed in litigation concerning the creation of water impoundments on their property, holding that the Commission erred in awarding fees and expenses.Alternative Fuels, Inc. (AFI) leased land from Landowners, who consented to AFI's creation of water impoundments on their property, but AFI constructed additional impoundments without consent. Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) initiated enforcement actions against AFI, after which AFI received approval for a permit revision. The Commission upheld the approval. The circuit court reversed. On remand, the Commission denied the permit revision application. Thereafter, Landowners filed an application for attorney fees and expenses arguing that they were the prevailing party and were entitled to attorney fees. The Commission granted the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Landowners' fee application was untimely, and therefore, the Commission erred in awarding Landowners attorney fees and expenses. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Natural Resources v. Fowler Land Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the underlying wrongful death lawsuit, holding that the allegations of the petition established that Crystal May was entitled to official immunity, as a matter of law, and therefore, the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.Plaintiff brought a wrongful death suit against May, alleging that May, a children's division caseworker, owed M.S., a toddler who died from a fentanyl overdose, a ministerial duty to make a SAFE CARE provider referral and that the failure to make such a referral under after M.S. died resulted in M.S.'s death. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding that May was entitled to official immunity and that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts establishing that May caused M.S.'s death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations of Plaintiff's petition established that May was entitled to official immunity as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations in the petition established that May was entitled to official immunity as a matter of law. View "Forester v. May" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal of the circuit court's final judgment in this criminal case, holding that Defendant's appeal was untimely.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of financial exploitation of an elderly person by undue influence. The circuit court sentenced her to ten years in prison and ordered her to pay restitution as a condition of parole. The circuit court dismissed Defendant's appeal. Thereafter, the circuit court set the amount of restitution and purported to resentence her to fifteen years in prison plus $26,118.51 in restitution. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that Defendant's notice of appeal was untimely. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case with directions for the circuit court to vacate the second judgment and sentence, holding that when the circuit court orally sentenced Defendant to ten years in prison, it exhausted its jurisdiction to withdraw Defendant's sentence, resentence her, or add restitution to the judgment. View "State v. Forbes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutional validity of Mo. Rev. Stat. 303.390, which prohibited Plaintiff from collecting noneconomic damages in her personal injury lawsuit filed against Defendant, with whom she had been in a motor vehicle accident, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief.At the time of the underlying accident, Plaintiff was an uninsured motorist prohibited from recovering noneconomic damages under section 303.390. The circuit court awarded Plaintiff economic damages for her medical bills but denied her renewed motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defense regarding section 303.390. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed properly to preserve her constitutional argument for appellate review. View "Bridegan v. Turntine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's petition seeking relief from fraudulent transfers Respondent made to hinder collection of her judgments against him, holding that Petitioner adequately alleged facts that, if true, entitled her to relief under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 428.005 to 428.059.On appeal, Petitioner argued that she alleged facts that, if taken as true, demonstrated that she was Respondent's creditor and that he made two transfers with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud her and, regarding one of the transfers, without receiving an equivalent value in exchange and either was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case, holding that Petitioner adequately pleaded a claim for relief under both Mo. Rev. Stat. 428.024.1(1) and Mo. Rev. Stat. 928.029.1. View "Konopasek v. Konopasek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the circuit court sustaining Defendant's motions to suppress evidence obtained after his warrantless arrest for a felony, holding that to the extent the decision was based on Defendant's claim that the Fourth Amendment is violated when an arresting officer was outside of the officer's jurisdiction unless the officer personally observed the crime, the decision was clearly erroneous.Defendant was charged in two separate cases for his involvement in two robberies. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after a warrantless arrest, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer was outside of his jurisdiction. The circuit court sustained the motions to suppress. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that while Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015), requires both probable cause and that the crime be committed in the officer's presence for an arrest to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, when a warrantless arrest is for a felony, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the arresting officer has probable cause for the arrest, even when the felony was not committed in the arresting officer's presence. View "State v. Barton" on Justia Law