Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, the same-sex partner of a highway patrolman who was killed in the line of duty, applied for survivor benefits under Mo. Rev. Stat. 104.140.3, which provides survivor benefits to the surviving spouse of a highway patrol employee who is killed in the line of duty. The Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System denied Appellant's application. Appellant argued before the circuit court that the survivor benefits statute violated his equal protection rights by excluding him from survivor benefits because of his sexual orientation and violated the constitutional proscription against special laws. The circuit court affirmed the administrative decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not eligible for survivor benefits because he was not married to the patrolman; and (2) the survivor benefits statute is constitutional and is not a special law. View "Glossip v. Mo. Dep't of Transp. & Highway Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

In 2002, Respondent purchased an airplane from an estate. In 2010, the Director of Revenue determined that Respondent should have paid use taxes because he had not paid sales tax on the purchase and because he stored the airplane in Missouri. The Administrative Hearing Commission determined that Respondent did not owe use tax because the Director did not prove that Respondent purchased the airplane out of state. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission erred in determining that Respondent did not owe the use tax assessed by the Director because the Commissioner's conclusion that the use tax applies only to goods that are purchased outside the state and then used or stored within the state was incorrect. View "Featherston v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

After the Missouri Governor allegedly withheld certain monies from the 2012 fiscal year state budget for the Legislature, the Supreme Court, and the Auditor's office, the state Auditor filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the Governor's authority under the Missouri Constitution to withhold those amounts. The trial court concluded (1) the Governor has discretion to control the rate of expenditures and to withhold or reduce expenditures at any time until the final day of the fiscal year; and (2) the Governor was authorized to increase appropriations based on an estimated, or "E" designation, on the line item. The Supreme Court dismissed the Auditor's claims, holding (1) the Auditor did not have standing to challenge the Governor's authority to withhold funds prior to the end of the fiscal year; (2) the Auditor did not have standing to challenge the "E" appropriations; and (3) the issue of the Governor's authority to withhold a portion of the Auditor's budget was not ripe for adjudication. View "Schweich v. Nixon" on Justia Law

In 1994, Appellant pleaded guilty to sodomy. Congress subsequently passed the federal sex offender registration act (SORNA), which required individuals such as Appellant to register as sex offenders. Before SORNA was enacted, Appellant completed his involvement in the criminal justice system. Appellant filed a petition challenging SORNA's constitutional validity as applied to him. The circuit court entered summary judgment against Appellant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) SORNA does not violate the nondelegation doctrine; (2) the registration requirement does not violate Appellant's right to substantive due process nor the prohibition in the U.S. Constitution against ex post facto criminal laws; and (3) SORNA complies with principles of federalism. View "Roe v. Replogle" on Justia Law

In 2001, Respondent pleaded guilty to the class B felony of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. In 2011, Respondent was indicted for knowingly and unlawfully possessing a .38 caliber revolver in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070, which provides that a person commits unlawful possession of a firearm if he knowingly has a firearm in his possession and has been convicted of a felony. Respondent moved to quash or dismiss the indictment, arguing that section 571.070 violated the Missouri Constitution as applied to him because it was an ex post facto law. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 471.070 was not an ex post facto law because it did not apply to conduct completed before its enactment. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The survivors of Barbara Smith appealed a punitive damage award of $1.5 million against the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. The Smiths contended that certain evidence admitted by the trial court was outside the court of appeals' prior mandate, and erred in overruling their motion for a new trial on the grounds of juror nondisclosure. The company cross-appealed, contending that the Smiths failed to make a submissible case for punitive damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the appellate court's mandate did not address any issues concerning what evidence could be presented at the retrial of punitive damages, and that the trial court did not err in overruling the Smiths' motion for a new trial or the Company's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Smith vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Hoover appealed the dismissal of his individual and class action lawsuit against defendants doing business as St. John's Mercy Medical Center. He asserted that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because it sufficiently stated a cause of action. Finding that Appellant's complaint indeed did sufficiently state a cause of action, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hoover vs. Mercy Health" on Justia Law

St. Louis County appealed a judgment awarding property owners damages from the taking of their real properties by eminent domain. The County claimed the judgment should have been reversed because the trial record was inadequate for appellate review because portions were inaudible or not recorded. Further, the County claimed the trial court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the verdict was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error, and that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "St. Louis County vs. River Bend Estates Homeowners' Association" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor criminal nonsupport. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal claiming Mo. Rev. Stat. 568.040 violated his due process rights because it forced him to disprove an element of the offense. Specifically, Defendant asserted that section 568.040 was unconstitutional because it makes lack of good cause an element of the crime of criminal support but then shifts the burden of proving good cause to the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the statute makes lack of good cause an element of the offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that Defendant's failure to pay the ordered child support was without good cause. View "State v. Holmes" on Justia Law

The Director of Revenue determined that Jonathan Eilian underpaid his 2006 Missouri taxes because he used his federal "net operating loss" (NOL) to offset income that was taxable under Missouri law but not taxable under federal law. Eilian brought a complaint before the Administrative Hearing Commission challenging the Director's decision. The Commission ruled in favor of Eilian. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Brown Group Inc. v. Administrative Hearing Commission was dispositive of the legal issues in this appeal and precluded Eilian from using his NOL to offset all of his Missouri-taxable income. Remanded to the Commission to recalculate Eilian's Missouri tax liability for 2006. View "Eilian v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law