Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven Pinkerton sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition requiring the circuit court to overrule a motion to compel arbitration filed by the Aviation Institute of Maintenance (the school). After Pinkerton graduated from the school and received his temporary airman certificate from the federal aviation administration and was still unable to find employment in the aviation field, Pinkerton sued the school. The circuit court sustained the school’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, Pinkerton argued that the circuit court erred in sustaining the school’s motion to compel arbitration due to issues surrounding the provision that the parties agreed to delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Supreme Court ruled that the circuit court properly sustained the school’s motion to compel arbitration, holding (1) the arbitration agreement clear and unmistakably evidenced the parties’ intent to delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator; and (2) because Pinkerton’s only specific challenge to the delegation provision was without merit, the delegation provision was valid and enforceable. View "State ex rel. Pinkerton v. Honorable Joel P. Fahnestock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court entering summary judgment in favor of the Doe Run Resources Corporation in this insurance coverage dispute. Doe Run was sued by several minor plaintiffs allegedly injured by toxic pollution released from Doe Run’s smelting facility in Peru. Doe Run sued St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, its insurer, for reimbursement of defense costs incurred during the litigation of these claims. St. Paul alleged that coverage was barred under the insurance policy’s pollution exclusion. The circuit court found the pollution exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pollution exclusion unambiguously barred coverage and that St. Paul had no duty to defend Doe Run from the lawsuits. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Sun Aviation, Inc. on the complaint filed by L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, Inc. for violations of various provisions of the Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.010 et seq. When L-3’s parent company underwent a consolidation process, the parent decided to terminate L-3’s distributorship with Sun, and directed L-3 to do so. Sun then filed an action against L-3. The court held (1) L-3’s gyros and power supplies did not fit the definition of “industrial, maintenance and construction power equipment” as applicable in the Industrial Maintenance and Construction Power Equipment Act and the Inventory Repurchase Act; (2) the circuit court erred in entering judgment in favor of Sun on L-3’s fraudulent concealment claim because the circuit court erred in determining that L-3 had a duty to disclose its parent company’s consolidation plans; and (3) the circuit court erred in awarding eighteen years of lost profits as damages on the count alleging violations of the Franchise Act. The court remanded the case for a new trial on damages and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Sun Aviation, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court exceeded its authority by sustaining Robby Ledford’s Rule 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to felony stealing and resentencing him as a misdemeanor offender. In his Rule 29.07(d) motion, Ledford claimed his conviction and sentence for felony stealing were unlawful and constituted manifest injustice pursuant to State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). The circuit court sustained the motion, issued an order amending the stealing charge from a felony to a class A misdemeanor, and resentenced Ledford. The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court’s order erroneously assumed that Bazell applies retroactively, and therefore, Ledford’s claim was both procedurally defaulted and substantively meritless. View "State ex rel. Fite v. Honorable Laura Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the motion court overruling Appellant’s amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and remanded the case, holding that Appellant’s amended motion was filed out of time, but the motion court did not conduct an abandonment inquiry to determine whether appointed counsel abandoned Appellant. Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of the class C felony of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance. Appellant later filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court appointed a public defender to represent Appellant. Appellant later filed his amended motion. The Supreme Court held that the amended motion was untimely. View "Bearden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Appellant of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. The court held (1) Appellant’s claim that the self-defense instruction submitted was incorrect was not meritorious because Appellant jointly drafted the instruction, thereby waiving plain error review of this claim; (2) Defendant also waived plain error review related to his claim that the trial court erred in refusing his instruction on his lack of duty to retreat; (3) the trial court did not commit plain error by declining to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (4) the trial court did not plainly error by failing to exclude evidence of uncharged misconduct; and (5) there was no error in the trial court’s rulings regarding closing arguments. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in this class action finding that every class member suffered damage as a result of alleged misrepresentations on the part of Nissan North American, Inc. and entered judgment for Nissan pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.14.Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, sued Nissan for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.010 to 407.130, based on alleged misrepresentations concerning the dashboards in certain Nissan Infinity FX vehicles. After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment requiring Nissan to pay $2,000 in damages to each class member and $1.9 million in attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements at issue were not actionable “misrepresentations” under section 407.020.1. View "Hurst v. Nissan North America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her twin girls and approving the adoption of the twins by their foster parents, holding that clear, cogent and convincing evidence supported the circuit court’s termination of parental rights under Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.447.5(2). On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that grounds for termination under section 211.447 were satisfied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother’s consent to the adoption was not needed where, as in this case, one of the grounds for termination under section 211.447 was satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re T.T.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied habeas relief to Petitioners, four individuals, who were incarcerated for their convictions for the class C felony of stealing property worth $500 or more but less than $25,000, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030.3(1).Petitioners were sentenced to either six or seven years’ imprisonment based on the felony classification. Petitioners sought habeas corpus relief, claiming that they were sentenced in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law because the offense of stealing is a class A misdemeanor that could not have been enhanced to a felony pursuant to the statute then in effect. The Supreme Court denied habeas relief, holding that Petitioners received a sentence that was authorized by a different interpretation of section 570.030 without objection and should not receive the benefit of retroactive application of this court’s decision in State v. Basel, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. 2016). View "State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Father’s parental rights to Child and granting the petition for the adoption filed by Mother and Stepfather. The circuit court concluded that Father’s consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 453.040(7) because Father willfully abandoned Child and willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected to provide Child with necessary care and protection. In affirming, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court’s conclusions regarding abandonment and neglect were not against the weight of the evidence; and (2) there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support a statutory ground for terminating parental rights and support a finding that Father’s consent was not necessary for adoption. View "S.S.S. v. C.V.S." on Justia Law