Case summaries for March 29 - April 4, 2024

Administrative | Criminal | Employment | Family | Insurance | Local Government | Miscellaneous Actions | Personal Injury | Post-Conviction | Real Estate | Tax

Administrative

Failure to follow regulation on denying applications did not require grant of application
Constitutional provisions set forth licensing standards. Those standards required a specified document. That document was not in applicant’s application, and the agency did not waive that requirement, so the agency denied the application. On administrative review, the Administrative Hearing Commission did likewise. “For purposes of review, the action of the commission and the order, if any, of the agency shall be treated as one decision” so the Supreme Court reviewed the Commission’s decision. The Commission’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in finding no waiver. The licensing agency’s regulations stated that the licensing agency “will” inform an applicant of a missing document, but the licensing agency based the denial of a document not listed in the denial letter. But “it is generally inappropriate to estop governmental agencies tasked with administrating licensure in highly regulated industries.”
(Overview Summary)
MO CANN Do, Inc., Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100172

Criminal

Sex offender registration judgment vacated for lack of notice
Statutes created a sex offender registry and provided how certain offenders may seek removal from the registry. In an action for removal from the registry, statutes required that specified entities be named in a petition, given notice, and have the opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so resulted in a record insufficient for appellate review, so the Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
(Overview Summary)
Missouri State Highway Patrol vs. Eric William Cooley
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86537

Late witnesses no surprise
The State endorsed witnesses late to provide a foundation for DNA evidence. Those witnesses did not surprise the defense, and the defense did not move for any remedy, make objection, or cross-examine the witnesses. The defense objected, but no fundamental unfairness occurred when the circuit court overruled the defendant’s objection to them. The State argued that the jury could do something about violence. The circuit court did not intervene sua sponte. Those facts did not describe any clear, evident or obvious error; so the Court of Appeals declines plain error review.
(Overview Summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tyrus A. Young, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111454

Employment

No liberty interest harmed by closed hearing
Dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim was not a final judgment subject to appeal except when appellant elects to stand on the petition as pleaded. Statutes created a claim for discrimination in employment based on actual or perceived “race or color,” association, and retaliation. In such claims, the elements include causation in the form of race or color as “the” motivating factor in an adverse employment action, so plaintiff must plead relevant ultimate facts to state a claim. As pleaded, plaintiff alleged facts supporting a reasonable inference of the determinative factor in plaintiff’s termination. “The question here is not whether [plaintiff] is likely to prevail on his retaliation claim, but is instead whether [plaintiff] has alleged enough to nudge [plaintiff] over the line of stating a claim upon which relief could be granted.” But plaintiff was a county employee at will, terminated in a closed hearing, so no liberty interest was at stake, and no judicial review of a non-contested case was available.
(Overview Summary)
David Barrett vs. Cole County, Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86414

Harassment not objectively shown
Defendant’s argument at the close of all the evidence was sufficient to preserve a challenge to the submissibility of plaintiff’s case. A subordinate’s single comment, though “undeniably offensive, and inappropriate in the workplace [,]” was not sufficiently pervasive to objectively support a claim of harassment. Judgment on that count reversed, requiring a remand for re-calculation of damages and attorney fees.
(Overview Summary)
Beatrice Young vs. Missouri Department of Corrections
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD85933

Appeal of dismissal challenges dismissal only
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s ruling dismissed appellant’s administrative appeal for untimely filing, but appellant’s appeal argued the merits of appellant’s claim, not the basis for the Commission’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals can only review the Commission’s decision, not matters undecided by the Commission. Appeal dismissed.
(Overview Summary)
Charlotte Porter vs. Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD85897

Family

Uniform parentage act analyzed
A partial judgment became final and subject to appeal on voluntary dismissal without prejudice of unadjudicated claims. The Missouri Uniform Parentage Act provided a procedure for determining parentage, including cases of adoption or same-sex couples, and was gender-neutral. For artificial insemination, the Act also set forth a procedure for generating and maintaining records of parentage, but departure from that procedure did not negate parentage. The Act set forth how to raise presumptions, resolve conflicting presumptions, and rebut presumptions. The Act also provided that a blood test was conclusive as to non-parentage, but not as to parentage, so other evidence was relevant to parentage. “[S]uch evidence included the knowing and intelligent agreements entered into between [parties and donors]; that Respondent had been held out to the Children and the world as the natural parent of the Children, and actively participated in raising them as a parent; and that [donors] never had parenting time with the Children, were never involved in decision-making concerning the Children, and were never asked to provide emotional, financial or physical support of the Children.” That analysis led the circuit court to conclude that both parties were “natural” parents and genetic donors were not.
(Overview Summary)
In Re the Matter of: A.I.A.K. & E.H.K. by S.A.K. as Next Friend and S.A.K. Individually vs. T.M.K., M.L.K., R.J.R.
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86240 and WD86241 consolidated

Insurance

No limited right of intervention for a stay
The elements of intervention in an action as a matter of right included a “direct” interest at stake in that litigation. Earlier case law provided insurers with a limited right of intervention to seek a stay of litigation pending a declaratory action on whether coverage was due. Later case law questioned that result because, when an insurer refused to defend without reservation, the insurer had an interest, a potential liability for indemnity, but potential liability was not a direct interest. And, even if the insurer had the right to intervene, the circuit court had discretion to deny a stay.
(Overview Summary)
Jeromy McCrackin vs. Tynan Mullen and Safeco Insurance Company of America
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86442

Local Government

County classification case transferred
“If any of the issues in a case raise questions of constitutional validity, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire case, not just the discrete constitutional question.” Constitution required a statutory classification system for counties, which statutes defined by assessed valuation, with one argued exception. Whether that exception constituted a violation of the constitutional requirement was more than a merely colorable argument, and plaintiff raised that constitutional issue timely in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, bringing the issue within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Transferred.
(Overview Summary) 
Jessica A. Goodman, Saline County Assessor vs. Saline County Commission and Kile Guthrey, Jr., Presiding Commissioner, and Stephanie Gooden, Northern Commissioner, and Charles Monte Fenner, Southern Commissioner, and Cindy Sims, Saline County Collector
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86126

Miscellaneous Actions

Fraudulent Transfers Act claim was timely
A petition was subject to dismissal if it facially showed that its claim was too late. Such was not the case in an action to recover assets under the Fraudulent Transfers Act, in which the deadline for filing was four years from discovery or one year from reasonably discoverable. “It seems that some, if not all, of the allegedly fraudulent transfers occurred more than four years before Appellant filed her petition. There is no evidence at this stage of the proceeding, however, that Appellant learned of all of these allegedly fraudulent transfers more than one year before filing her petition. To the contrary, she states that she did not learn what Respondent did with the transferred assets until later. The face of the petition did not show that the petition was untimely, so the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment that dismissed the petition.
(Overview Summary) 
Anita Martin vs. Christopher Martin
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86410

Personal Injury

No prejudice from comparative fault instruction
An instruction must follow substantive law and, to avoid a roving commission, must set forth the facts alleged to constitute a claim or defense. In an action for negligence, the circuit court instructed the jury on comparative fault with an instruction setting forth the facts allegedly constituting appellant plaintiff’s comparative fault. The jury assessed no fault to plaintiff, so any error in the instruction resulted in no prejudice to plaintiff.
STEPHEN BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38135

Post-Conviction

Relief reversed
The grounds for enhancing an offense constitute elements of the offense, but the State could reduce charges by amended information any time before a finding of guilt, and a prosecutor’s opening argument did not add a charge to the information. In the underlying criminal action, the circuit court sentenced movant within the statutory range, and the circuit court erred on post-conviction relief in finding otherwise. Statute required any person convicted of a dangerous felony to serve 85 percent of their sentence, but movant was not convicted of a dangerous felony, and the circuit court erred on post-conviction relief in finding that trial counsel misadvised movant. Judgment granting post-conviction relief reversed.
(Overview Summary)
Leonard R. Mims vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86083

Real Estate

Special use permit upheld
An ordinance could set forth the facts supporting an exception to zoning as set forth in a special use permit, as issued by a planning and zoning commission and a board of zoning adjustment, which could include conditions. Res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case did not apply from a ruling on earlier denied applications to a significantly different later granted application. Plain language showed that minimum infrastructure standards were a discretionary basis for denial, not mandatory; otherwise, all development would require identical infrastructure, which was an absurd result. Substantial and competent evidence, including the later application’s accommodation of opposition to earlier applications, supported issuance of the permit.
(Overview Summary)
State of Missouri at the Relation of: Laurie Lewis, Et al. vs. Board of Zoning Adjustment, Platte County, Missouri and CKC Holdings, LLC.
Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86182

Right of first refusal explained 
"The owner of the assets subject to the right of refusal remains master of the conditions under which the owner will relinquish its interest [.]” Parties’ contract provided prospective buyers with a right of first refusal to purchase any part of owners’ property. Owners notified prospective buyers of bona fide offers for the entire property, but prospective buyers offered to buy only about half of the property. Summary judgment for prospective buyers reversed, and remanded to enter summary judgment for owners, and to award attorney fees to owners.
DOUGLAS NIEMUTH, and CAROL NIEMUTH, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. DONALD GASTON, and ROUNDCOUNT RANCH, LLC, Appellants/Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37950 and SD38028 consolidated

Tax

Must rule on Hancock Amendment claim
Missouri Constitution’s Hancock Amendment governs local taxation and prescribes an award of attorney fees when a political subdivision violates its provisions. Plaintiffs filed an action that included a claim for declaratory judgment, charging defendant water district with a Hancock violation, but the circuit court declined to rule on that claim. Reversed and remanded to rule on the Hancock claim and assess any attorney fees due.
ADAM BINGHAM and IDA BINGHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PHELPS COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT #4, Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37850