Case summaries for Oct. 31-Nov. 6

Administrative | ADR | Appellate | Corporations and other entities | Criminal | Employment | Insurance

Administrative

Challenge as against the weight of the evidence described 
To challenge a judgment as against the weight of the evidence was “a difficult path, as ‘[t]his Court rarely has reversed a trial judgment as against the weight of the evidence [.]” The Supreme Court expressly required an analysis that included a presentation of all evidence supporting the judgment, resolving all conflicts in favor of the judgment, and showing that the result lacked probative force to support a finding of fact necessary to the judgment. For example, appellant argued that the circuit court overlooked a dispositive admission by respondent. But the record showed otherwise. Failure to adhere to that analysis deprived appellant’s arguments of value so the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112624

ADR

Arbitrability delegated 
Parties to a contract could agree to delegate any matter to an arbitrator, including whether a matter was subject to arbitration. Challenges to a delegation clause had to be distinct from a challenge to an arbitration provision. Partnerships were not legal entities separate from the partners, so partner signatures to an agreement bound the partnership. “Missouri adheres to the ‘aggregate theory’ of partnerships, i.e., a general partnership has no legal existence separate from its partners [and] the Uniform Partnership Act . . . did not change this venerable principle.” Therefore, partner signatures on an arbitration agreement bound the partners and their successors—including a partner’s estate—to arbitration of disputes, including whether any matter was subject to arbitration. The circuit court ruled otherwise, so the Court of Appeals vacated that ruling, and remanded for the circuit court to compel arbitration. 
(Overview summary) 
Diana Maune, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Neil J. Maune, Respondent, vs. Marcus Raichle, Jr. and the Maune Raichle Law Firm, Appellants. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100942

Appellate

No final judgment while relief pending 
The Court of Appeals could address the merits of appeals from final judgments but calling a judgment final did not make it a final judgment. A final judgment was a judgment that disposed of all matters as to all parties. Plaintiff prayed for relief that included prejudgment interest and attorney fees, matters on which the judgment was silent, rendering the judgment less than final. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Savannah Radmer vs. Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86817 Consolidated with WD86874

Corporations and other entities

Specific performance affirmed for buy/sell option 
The elements of specific performance included plaintiff’s full performance. The plaintiff’s performance included tender of a purchase price but defendant’s express intention not to perform waived tender. Plaintiff then had to demonstrate that plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform. The elements of a contract included a meeting of the minds as to the contract’s provisions so, in an action for breach of contract, mutual mistake was an affirmative defense. Defendant appellant alleged that both parties were mistaken as to the assets subject to a forced buy/sell option. The circuit court did not find for defendant on the facts supporting that affirmative defense. Strict compliance with notice provisions were subject to waiver, which the parties’ communication by email did. The Court of Appeals deferred to the circuit court’s findings of fact, and those findings were not against the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the action for a determination of litigation expenses on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Virginia W. Crawford vs. John A. Gardner 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87674

No ruling on counterclaim, no final judgment 
The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, meaning judgments that resolved all matters as to all parties. Such resolution occurred as to counterclaims when resolving the claim necessarily resolved the counterclaim. Such was not the case when the counterclaims were for slander of title, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process; and the claim was for violation of a trust’s no-contest clause; because the record showed that a jury trial was to follow bench trials for equitable matters. Because the judgment was not final, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied a motion for attorney fees as premature. 
(Overview summary) 
Anita M. Beckmann, Appellant, v. Mary K. Wilson, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113220

Criminal

Review of prosecutor’s conduct discussed 
“[E]ven a direct reference to the defendant’s refusal to testify did not necessarily entitle the defendant to a mistrial [,]” and questioning an expert as to why the expert did not interview defendant did not implicate the defendant’s right to remain silent, and so the circuit court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial. While cross-examining an expert, the prosecutor referred to defendant as “your client [,]” but expressed satisfaction with the circuit court’s remedy, waiving error. Defendant also showed no prejudice from the reference. Prosecutorial misconduct was not subject to direct appeal. Only extraordinary circumstances supported plain error review of the circuit court’s failure to intervene sua sponte in a prosecutor’s closing argument, and that did not describe the prosecutor’s discussion of victim’s trauma. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Ian James McCarthy 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86568

Probation mandatory 
Denial of probation was subject to review by writ of mandamus. On successful completion of a 120-day program, the circuit court had to either release relator or execute relator’s sentence, the latter only after hearing. The circuit court did not hold a hearing before executing sentence, which was error as a matter of law. An 11th-hour allegation of probation violations did not alter that result. The Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court to release relator on probation. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. SAI-JAHN CARTER, Relator v. THE HONORABLE ROBERT MAYER, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39084

Interlocutory appeal was too late 
Circuit court rulings on motions to suppress were subject to interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals within a limited time. Filing times started with the rulings. A ruling first appeared in a docket entry “unequivocally” and “definitively” suppressing evidence without regard to findings of fact or proposed orders. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100967

Prohibition barred ruling on untimely motion 
Writs of prohibition could issue to bar circuit court orders in excess of circuit court authority. Untimely motions were nullities and did not support any relief in circuit court. In circuit court, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals treated as a motion for acquittal. Motions for acquittal were subject to a deadline that defendant missed. The circuit court had no authority to rule on defendant’s motion so the Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of prohibition. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, v. Honorable Ryan J. Helfrich, Judge of Franklin County, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113594

Employment

No physical presence, no relief 
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted tested whether petitions described facts on which courts could provide a remedy. “Missouri statutes, absent express text to the contrary, apply only within the boundaries of this state and have no extraterritorial effect.” Therefore, the Human Rights Act allowed relief to employees who suffered discrimination in Missouri only and not elsewhere. Defendant employer ‘s headquarters were in Missouri, but plaintiff employee worked from home in Louisiana, so Louisiana was where any damage to plaintiff occurred. The circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition. 
(Overview summary) 
Carrie Sciortino vs. Ozark National Life Insurance Company 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87848

Insurance

No duty to defend nor indemnify 
The mere potential for liability, as shown in a petition or otherwise known or reasonably apparent to the insurer, created the duty to defend. No duty to defend arose from events that the petition alleged to have occurred decades after the expiration of the insurers’ policies. The conduct of plaintiff’s predecessor—the insured under the expired policies—did not alter that result even as alleged in the petition. Circuit courts’ contract interpretation was a matter of law and so subject to appellate review de novo. 
(Overview summary) 
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.; Certain Other London Market Insurance Companies and Employer's Insurance Company of Wausau 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87343