Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against Independence School District alleging that he had been fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 278.780, holding that the general assembly expressly waived whatever immunity the school district might have had.In dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, the circuit court found that the school district enjoyed sovereign immunity from Plaintiff's workers' compensation retaliation claim. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that workers' compensation claims are authorized against the school district because the legislature included state and political subdivisions such as school districts as employers for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that, considered together, sections 278.780 and Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.030 reflect an express showing of legislative intent to waive the school district's sovereign immunity for Plaintiff's workers' compensation retaliation claim. View "Poke v. Independence School District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's medical malpractice case without prejudice for failure to file an affidavit of merit within 180 days pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 538.225, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant argued (1) section 538.225 violates multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution, (2) the defense of failure to file an affidavit of merit was waived, and (3) he substantially complied with the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's constitutional claims were without merit; (2) section 538.225 is not an affirmative defense that can be waived if not pleaded in an answer; and (3) to the extent substantial compliance with section 538.225 is possible, Appellant failed to substantially comply. View "Giudicy v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and three counts of incest and sentencing him to a total of eighty-seven years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence pursuant to Mo. Const. art. I, 18(c), overruling objections to the State's closing argument, admitting expert testimony and particular exhibits, and finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error, plain or otherwise, or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below. View "State v. Minor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of tampering with a judicial officer and second-degree harassment of his probation officer, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's facial overbreadth challenge to the second-degree harassment statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.091, was without merit; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for second-degree harassment; and (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy when it sentenced Defendant for both tampering with a judicial officer and second-degree harassment. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment on one of Respondent's three claims, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not a "final judgment" for purposes of Mo. Rev. Code 512.020(5).Respondent, Jefferson County 9-1-1 Dispatch, filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus, and injunctive relief preventing Appellant, the Director of the Department of Revenue, from enforcing Mo. Rev. Stat. 190.327.5. Respondent argued that the statute violated three different provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court entered judgment for Respondent on one of its claims, but the remaining two claims were neither denied nor dismissed. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not a final judgment for purposes of section 512.020(5). View "Jefferson County 9-1-1 Dispatch v. Plaggenberg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court granting the State's Rule 74.06(b)(5) motion for relief from its 2016 judgment permanently enjoining the State from enforcing Mo. Rev. Stat. 67.287 and Mo. Rev. Stat. 479.359.2, holding that the circuit court erred.In 2016, the circuit court permanently enjoined the State from enforcing sections 67.287 and 479.359.2 after finding those sections to be unconstitutional special laws. Three years later, the Supreme Court decided City of Aurora v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, 592 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2019), which restored the rational basis analysis for social law claims. Thereafter, the State filed a motion for relief from judgment. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court improperly assumed a change in decisional law was sufficient to warrant relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 75.06(b)(5). View "City of Normandy v. Parson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant for driving while intoxicated and sentencing him as a habitual offender, holding that the circuit court erred in sentencing Defendant as a habitual offender.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he was a habitual offender based solely on a certified copy of his Colorado driving record. Specifically, Defendant argued that the State failed to introduce facts underlying the Colorado convictions to show that the conduct at issue would qualify as intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs) in Missouri at the time of his current offense. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was convicted of at least five prior IRTOs based solely on his Colorado driving record. View "State v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of assault and armed criminal action following a jury trial, holding that the circuit court prejudicially erred in failing to give the "castle doctrine" self-defense jury instruction that Defendant requested.During trial, Defendant requested a self-defense instruction justifying the use of deadly force by a person lawfully in a vehicle, otherwise known as the "castle doctrine." The circuit court refused the castle doctrine instruction but gave the general self-defense instruction. Defendant was subsequently found guilty on all counts. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions, holding (1) the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the castle doctrine; and (2) Defendant was prejudiced by the error. View "State v. Straughter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court entering summary judgment in favor of Alexis Still in this dispute over whether there was a settlement agreement between the parties, holding that there was no settlement agreement between the parties.Clifton Jameson and Still were involved in an automobile accident. Jameson sent MetLife, Still's insurer, an offer to settle. MetLife made a counteroffer. Jameson took the counteroffer as a rejection of his offer to settle and sued Still for damages arising from the accident. MetLife then attempted to accept Jameson's original settlement offer. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Still, concluding that MetLife's counteroffer did not terminate the settlement offer and that its subsequent letter of acceptance created a settlement agreement between the two parties. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of settlement because no settlement agreement was reached. View "Jameson v. Still" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversing the administrative law judge's (ALJ) award of permanent and total disability (PTD) benefits against the Second Injury Fund, holding that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence.Christopher Klecka suffered a compensable work-related injury to his left shoulder. After settling the primary claim with his employer Klecka brought a claim against the Fund, alleging that his primary injury combined with his prior injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled (PTD). An ALJ issued an award against the fund for PTD benefits. The Commission reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Klecka failed to establish that his primary injury and sole qualifying preexisting disability entitled him to PTD benefits from the Fund under Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.220.3. View "Klecka v. Treasurer of Missouri" on Justia Law