Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Dilks filed a pro se petition to recover damages he suffered as a result of a flood. The “Plaintiffs” identified in the allegations of the petition were Dilks, individually, and Naylor Senior Citizens Housing, LP and Naylor Senior Citizens Housing II, LP (collectively, “Partnerships”), both of which were Missouri statutory limited partnerships. The trial court dismissed the Partnerships’ claims on the ground that, because Dilks was not a licensed attorney and he attempted to assert claims on behalf of the Partnerships, the petition was a nullity and had no legal effect for purposes of asserting claims on behalf of the Partnerships. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as statutory entities, the Partnerships may not appear in Missouri court except through a licensed attorney, and because Dilks was not a licensed attorney, his attempt to assert claims on behalf of the Partnerships constituted the unauthorized practice of law and may not be given effect. View "Naylor Senior Citizens Housing, LP v. Sides Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Claimant worked part-time for Design Design from July 2008 until she obtained full-time employment in March 2010. Claimant received $320 in unemployment benefits and $25 in federal stimulus benefits for each of forty-eight weeks from May 2009 to March 2010. After the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission discovered Claimant’s employment with Design Design, the Commission found that Claimant willfully failed to disclose that she was working during the period she was receiving benefits. Therefore, the Commission determined that Claimant must return part of her benefits and pay certain penalties. The Supreme Court largely affirmed, the Commission’s decisions, holding that sufficient competent evidence in the record supported all of the Commission’s actions, except for the amount of one of the penalties. Remanded with instructions to reassess that penalty. View "Coday v. Div. of Employment Sec’y" on Justia Law

After Central Trust and Investment Company purchased Springfield Trust & Investment Company (STC), Central Trust filed an action against SignalPoint Asset Management, LLC, a registered investment advisor, for affiliating with STC’s ex-employee, who had acquired STC’s client list and had become an independent advisor representative of SignalPoint. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of SignalPoint on its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Central Trust did not demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether SignalPoint “misappropriated” Central Trust’s client list as that term is defined by the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (2) this failure also justified the grant of summary judgment against Central Trust’s claim of tortious interference with business relations; and (3) Central Trust’s civil conspiracy claim was moot. View "Cent. Trust & Inv. Co. v. SignalPoint Asset Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2004, a jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree sodomy. Appellant was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. In 2009, more than four years after the deadline to file a Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15(b) motion for post-conviction relief had passed, Appellant filed a Rule 29.15 motion. In his motion, Appellant claimed that his failure to comply with the filing deadline should be excused because the counsel he retained to draft and file his Rule 29.15 motion for him had misunderstood the deadlines. The motion court granted Appellant’s motion for leave to file his Rule 29.15 motion out of time, concluding that Appellant’s failure to comply with the filing deadline rested entirely with Appellant’s counsel. After an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s substantive claims, the motion court granted relief and vacated Appellant’s conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Appellant’s motion with prejudice, holding that the motion court erred by proceeding on Appellant’s untimely motion because Appellant waived all claims for relief when he failed to timely file his Rule 29.15(b) motion, and none of the exceptions to the deadline requirement applied in this case. View "Price v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree and armed criminal action. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the trial court's practice of permitting qualified jurors to opt out of jury service by agreeing to perform community service constituted a fundamental and systemic failure to comply with the statutory jury selection requirements. The circuit court and court of appeals denied the motion. Defendant then filed his writ petition with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that allowing five prospective jurors to opt out of service during Defendant's trial did not constitute a "substantial failure" to comply with the jury selection statutes or undermine the confidence in the verdict.View "State ex rel. Sitton v. Norman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of twenty-six counts of first-degree murder, burglary, and related crimes for actions he took during a robbery and home invasion when he was sixteen years old. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for first-degree murder. The circuit court dismissed four counts on which the jury had found Defendant guilty, finding it had no jurisdiction over the charges because they were outside the scope of the juvenile court's certification. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, (1) the trial court erred in dismissing the four counts related to one of the victims of Defendant's crimes because she was not named in Defendant's juvenile petition; (2) the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove first-degree murder; and (3) Defendant's sentence of life without parole for first-degree murder violated the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed with no individualized consideration of the myriad of factors discussed in Miller v. Alabama. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Nathan" on Justia Law

Atmos Energy Corporation, a local distributing company, contracted with independent gas marketing companies to purchase natural gas then delivered gas to customers through local pipelines. Following an audit, Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) staff indicated that Atmos had failed to comply with affiliate transaction rules by failing to document properly the fair market value and fully distributed cost of its transactions with its affiliate, Atmos Energy Marketing LLC (AEM). The staff then proposed a disallowance regarding Atmos' transactions with AEM. After an evidentiary hearing, the PSC found compliance with the affiliate transaction rules and rejected the proposed disallowances. The Office of Public Counsel (OPC) appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the PSC erred in relying upon a presumption of prudence in rejecting staff and OPC's proposed disallowance regarding Atmos's transactions with AEM. Remanded.View "Office of Pub. Counsel v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action for shooting a killing a victim during the second of two robberies he committed when he was seventeen years old. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not reversibly err in playing Defendant's videotaped interrogation at trial; and (2) Defendant's sentence of life without parole violated the Eighth Amendment because it was imposed without any opportunity for the sentencing court to consider whether this punishment was appropriate in light of Defendant's age, maturity, and other factors discussed in Miller v. Alabama. Remanded.View "State v. Hart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff rented a garden tiller from Home Depot by signing a tool rental agreement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a class-action lawsuit against Home Depot, claiming that it violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by automatically including a damage waiver fee in its agreement and not making clear in the agreement that the damage waiver fee was optional. Plaintiff also claimed the damage waiver was of no value. The trial court granted summary judgment for Home Depot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the damage waiver in the rental contract was clearly optional and provided a benefit of value to Plaintiff, Home Depot did not engage in any unfair practice prohibited by the MMPA. View "Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant for the injuries she sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiff was not present during voir dire or at the beginning of the second morning of trial before opening statements commenced. Upon the motion of Defendant, the trial court excluded Plaintiff from the trial and allowed Defendant to argue an adverse inference. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in both excluding Plaintiff from trial and then allowing Defendant's attorney to make an adverse inference about Plaintiff's absence from the courtroom, rulings that, taken together, resulted in manifest injustice to Plaintiff.View "Bair v. Faust" on Justia Law