Case summaries for February 7-13, 2025

Appellate | Constitutional | Criminal | Employment | Personal injury | Probate | Real estate

Appellate

Mutual understanding preserved objection 
A motion in limine was insufficient to preserve an objection. Renewing the objection was unnecessary when the prosecution and the defense mutually understood that a party intended to preserve an objection. The record showed such a mutual understanding because defendant filed a motion in limine regarding a witness’s identification, conducted an extensive voir dire of the witness during the guilt phase, referred specifically to the motion in limine, and set out the arguments in that motion; and in response to same arguments in defendant’s after-trial motion, the State did not raise the preservation of the objection. An identification is subject to objection for unduly suggestive means, but the means cited by defendant was defendant’s incarceration with the witness, which did not lead to the identification and was inadvertent. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri vs. James L. Gant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86484

Judgment not final when remedies remain 
Circuit courts could certify for appeal partial judgments that adjudicated a judicial unit, meaning all claims as to a party, or all remedies as to one set of events. In an action for trespass, plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief, and defendants filed cross-claims. The circuit court found for plaintiffs on liability and injunctive relief, reserved ruling on damages and the cross-claims, and certified the partial judgment for appeal. Because the parties sought remedies based on the same events, the judgment failed to resolve a single judicial unit, and the certification constituted error. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
William Hoelting, et al., Respondents, vs. Hadley Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112652

Constitutional

Human rights act damages cap transferred 
The Human Rights Act provided a cap on damages awarded by juries in circuit court actions. Whether that provision violated constitutional provisions issues of first impression, and therefore more than merely colorable, and within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court. 
(Overview Summary) 
Catharine Sue Carter as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased) vs. Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86558 Related Case: WD86559

Criminal

Failure to register was knowing 
Because the statutes defining failure to register as a sex offender did not include a mental state, the mental state was purposefully or knowingly, meaning with awareness of one’s conduct and circumstances. Relevant to that mental state, the defendant knew where he lived and knew that he had not registered. The defendant testified that he believed no obligation to register existed despite notice of that obligation from the sheriff, but how well the defendant understood the law was irrelevant, and the circuit court was free to disbelieve that evidence. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Scott J. Parrish 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86669

Lifetime monitoring okay
Constitutional provisions barred unreasonable searches and seizures. Statute required lifetime tracking of plaintiff by ankle bracelet for a statutory sodomy conviction. Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to strike the statute as unconstitutional applied. Plaintiff had the burden of proof by individualized evidence. The record showed that plaintiff’s demographic had a low recidivism rate, and that plaintiff had not reoffended, but that did not show anything about future re-offending or negate the circuit court’s finding that sex offender can re-offend over a long term. Plaintiff did not rebut the presumed constitutionality of the statute so the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying plaintiff relief.
(Overview Summary)
F.S., Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100558

Employment

Merchandising practices act applied 
The Merchandising Practices Act provided that employment contracts controlled the employment relationship between an employer and a sales employee. But the Act also specifically voided any contractual provision conflicting with any provision of the Act. The Act provided that any seller paying sales associates by commission had to pay commissions on any sales made during the employment. The parties’ contractual provision to the contrary was therefore void. The Act also provided additional damages for failure to pay within a specified time and a mere offer to pay did not constitute payment. The circuit court failed to assess the additional damages so the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment for a determination of the additional damages due. 
(Overview Summary) 
Mike Abduhamed, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Carol House Furniture, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112408

Evidence

Exclusion of THC intoxication opinion not preserved
Defendants did not object at trial to plaintiffs’ participation through separately retained counsel and so preserved no error. Circuit court rulings on motions in limine were interlocutory and required the proponent of evidence to make an offer of proof at trial. The circuit court excluded the defendants’ expert opinion that decedent’s driver was intoxicated with marijuana. The defendants did not attempt to call the expert, renew their argument, or make an adequate offer of proof at trial. “[A] record made the morning of trial before the venire panel is sworn is not evidence offered at trial [,]” so that procedure did not preserve any challenge. The record supported an instruction on defendant driver’s failure to keep a careful lookout because it included evidence that defendant driver was driving too fast on a curve with a flashing yellow light, and on which other conditions enhanced the danger, and failed to keep a careful lookout laterally. Additional evidence supporting an instruction on aggravating circumstances supporting punitive damages against defendant driver included intentional violations of professional standards, an unwritten policy to drive over the speed limit, failure to investigate the wreck, and failure to remedy the causes of the wreck.
(Overview Summary)
Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., deceased, Respondents, vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and Lennis H. Beck, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100582

Personal injury

Federal law did not pre-empt glyphosate verdict 
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempted any State requirement for labeling or packaging inconsistent with federal requirements. Missouri law on strict liability for failure to warn did not impose any requirement “in addition to or different from” the Act. The Act also impliedly pre-empted any irreconcilable conflict between Missouri law and the Act. The elements of that defense included defendant informing the United States Environmental Protection Agency of a Missouri requirement and the Agency refusing to change the label’s warning. Defendant did not offer such evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
John L. Durnell, Respondent, vs. Monsanto Company, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112410

Probate

Actions survived plaintiff’s death 
Appellate courts reviewed only the circuit court’s announced reason for dismissal. Dismissal was possible for a petition in circuit court that did not state a claim for relief. Tort actions, which abated on the death of a party at common law, survived under statutes that preserved actions for personal injury. Personal injury included damages to a person’s rights at law, including the Human Rights Act and the Public Employee Whistleblower Statute. The amended petition, substituting the personal representative for decedent plaintiff, stated a claim and the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for reinstatement. 
(Overview Summary) 
Hazel Erby, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112783

Real estate

Lost profits not shown 
Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord for breach of contract and sought damages for lost profits. Lost profits consisted of “net profits a plaintiff would have realized if [plaintiff’s] clients had not been lost as a result of a defendant’s actions” and required “stringent” proof to avoid speculative awards. Plaintiff showed no net profit and only conjecture that $3,000 in sales would have led to $3,000,000 in profits, even considering the operations of a related co-plaintiff. Nevertheless, the jury awarded damages and did not distinguish lost profits from other damages, so the Court of Appeals vacated the plaintiff’s judgment and remanded the action for a new trial on damages without lost profits. Also, the co-plaintiff sought unliquidated damages for negligence, and the jury found for plaintiff, but awarded zero damages. Such a verdict constituted a verdict for defendant, so the Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered the circuit court on remand to enter judgment for defendant. 
EARTH TO GO, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent and BIODEGRADABLE FOOD SERVICE, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff v. CITY OF RICHLAND, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38086