Case Summary for May 9, 2002

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for May 9, 2002

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

ATTACHED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE BRIEF(S) FILED BY THE PARTY OR PARTIES. THESE ELECTRONIC BRIEFS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO PDF BY THE COURT'S STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS WORD PROCESSORS. (If you do not already have the Acrobat reader, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website.) THE ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT REFLECT ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT, THE COMPLETE ELECTRONIC FILING, OR THE FORMAT OF THE ORGINAL FILING. GENERALLY, ONLY THE APPELLANT'S SUBSTITUTE, RELATOR'S, AND RESPONDENT'S SUBSTITUTE BRIEFS WILL BE POSTED; IF AVAILABLE, REPLY BRIEFS ALSO WILL BE POSTED. BRIEFS FROM THE COURT BELOW, APPENDICES, AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS WILL GENERALLY NOT BE POSTED HERE. (To determine whether or which briefs have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.) POSTING OF THE BRIEFS DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMAT OF THE BRIEFS OR THE MERITS OF A CASE. THESE POSTINGS ARE NOT OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Thursday, May 9, 2002

________________________________________________________________________

SC84192
Mark J. Hinnah v. Director of Revenue
St. Louis County
Propriety of driver's license revocation

Early on New Year's Day 1999, a Chesterfield police officer knocked on the window of the pick-up truck in which Mark Hinnah was sleeping. The truck was parked on the shoulder of Highway 40 with the engine running. Hinnah presented his passport as identification and told the officer he was looking for the Chesterfield police station. According to the officer, Hinnah, who appeared to be intoxicated, admitted hitting a concrete barrier about a half-mile back. The officer did not perform any field sobriety tests until after he arrested Hinnah for driving while intoxicated and took him to the police station, where Hinnah refused to take a breath test. The director of revenue revoked Hinnah's license for one year. Following a trial before a commissioner, who concluded the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Hinnah, the court ordered the director to reinstate Hinnah's driving privileges.

The director appeals, arguing the court's decision misinterpreted the law and was against the weight of the evidence. She contends that under section 577.041.4, the only proof necessary to support revocation is that the person refused to submit to a breath test, not that they actually were driving while intoxicated. The director argues that she proved that Hinnah was arrested, that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Hinnah was driving while intoxicated, and that Hinnah refused to submit to a breath test.

Hinnah responds that the court's judgment is correct. He argues the director failed to prove revocation was proper under section 577.041 because there was no credible, competent, reliable evidence that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Hinnah was driving while intoxicated. He contends that he effectively rebutted the evidence presented in the director's case.

SC84190
In re: Joseph P. Danis
St. Louis
Attorney discipline

Joseph Danis was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 1993 and was hired as an associate at Thompson & Mitchell in St. Louis, where he previously had served as a summer intern. While an intern and new associate, attorney John Carey mentored Danis. Danis also worked for partner Charles Newman in defending the Chrysler Corporation against consumer class action litigation. Danis reported working 513.5 hours for Chrysler from January 1992 through December 1995. Through his work for the firm, Danis became familiar with Chrysler's various defense strategies, legal theories and settlement practices. In November 1994, Danis and Carey, who was Newman's primary associate on the Chrysler litigation, told Newman they were leaving the firm to open their own workers' compensation and personal injury firm. Their last day at Thompson & Mitchell was January 13, 1995. Both took with them certain documents relating to Chrysler from their former firm without permission. Their new firm shared space, equipment and certain administrative personnel with the law firm of Danis' father, David Danis. After much discussion with other attorneys, a personal injury suit stemming from a problem with the antilock braking system on a Chrysler minivan was taken by David Danis' firm and another firm.

Although Carey and Joseph Danis determined they would not participate from that point forward in this case, the firms handling the case used a petition Carey had drafted on Chrysler's behalf in the course of settling litigation while he still was at Thompson & Mitchell. After being served with the petition, Newman alerted Chrysler to the similarities in the petitions, and Chrysler retained the Bryan Cave law firm to investigate the involvement of Carey and Joseph Danis in the new lawsuit. After hearing about the investigation, one of the firms on the new lawsuit against Chrysler withdrew its representation. The next month, Carey and Joseph Danis entered their appearance in the suit. They did not seek or obtain Chrysler's consent to sue their former client. A few months later, they dismissed their suit, and the plaintiffs joined a class action lawsuit already pending in New Jersey. Carey and Joseph Danis apparently entered into an agreement with other attorneys in the New Jersey case to share any attorneys' fees awarded in the case, although they did not enter their appearance on behalf of any of the plaintiffs.

In March 1996, Chrysler sued Carey and Joseph Danis in federal court, claiming, among other things, that the attorneys had breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation for assisting a group of other attorneys in class action claims against Chrysler in several states, including New Jersey. After the judge presiding over the Chrysler case against the attorneys found that Carey and Danis failed to produce certain documents in discovery, the two attorneys were sanctioned. They eventually were ordered to pay $850,000 to Chrysler, which they did.

The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to suspend Danis' license to practice law with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. She argues Danis should be disciplined because he falsely and misleadingly denied the existence of certain communications and documents during discovery after Chrysler sued him. She contends Danis also should be disciplined for willfully representing plaintiffs in a consumer product class action case against Chrysler without Chrysler's consent.

Danis responds that he did not improperly represent plaintiffs in a class action suit against Chrysler because the suit, which involved an allegedly defective antilock braking system, was not substantially related to any matter in which he previously had represented Chrysler. He argues he did not abuse the discovery process or fail to produce requested documents when Chrysler sued him. He also contends he should not be prevented from making that argument to this Court because the issues are different than those decided in the federal courts. Danis argues that, to the extent this Court finds he should be disciplined, the discipline should be a public reprimand rather than a suspension of his license.

SC84189
In re: John J. Carey
St. Louis
Attorney discipline

John Carey was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 1987 and went to work as an associate for Thompson & Mitchell in St. Louis, where he worked for partners including Charles Newman. He assisted Newman in defending the Chrysler Corporation against consumer class action litigation. Carey reported working 1,314.6 hours for Chrysler from January 1992 through December 1995. Through his work for the firm, Carey became familiar with Chrysler's various defense strategies, legal theories and settlement practices. As Newman's primary associate, Carey helped formulate Chrysler's overall defense to consumer class actions pending concurrently with the national highway traffic safety administration's investigations. This work included developing a chart of considerations that was intended to serve as a blueprint for defending Chrysler against consumer class action cases, including those involving certain products liability cases. In November 1994, Carey and Joseph Danis, another associate at the firm, told Newman they were leaving the firm to open their own workers' compensation and personal injury firm. Their last day at Thompson & Mitchell was January 13, 1995. Both took with them certain documents relating to Chrysler from their former firm without permission. Their new firm shared space, equipment and certain administrative personnel with the law firm of Danis' father, David Danis. After much discussion with other attorneys, a personal injury suit stemming from a problem with the antilock braking system on a Chrysler minivan was taken by David Danis' firm and another firm.

Although Carey and Joseph Danis determined they would not participate from that point forward in this case, the firms handling the case used a petition Carey had drafted on Chrysler's behalf in the course of settling litigation while he still was at Thompson & Mitchell. After being served with the petition, Newman alerted Chrysler to the similarities in the petitions, and Chrysler retained the Bryan Cave law firm to investigate the involvement of Carey and Joseph Danis in the new lawsuit. After hearing about the investigation, one of the firms on the new lawsuit against Chrysler withdrew its representation. The next month, Carey and Joseph Danis entered their appearance in the suit. They did not seek or obtain Chrysler's consent to sue their former client. A few months later, they dismissed their suit, and the plaintiffs joined a class action lawsuit already pending in New Jersey. Carey and Joseph Danis apparently entered into an agreement with other attorneys in the New Jersey case to share any attorneys' fees awarded in the case, although they did not enter their appearance on behalf of any of the plaintiffs.

In March 1996, Chrysler sued Carey and Joseph Danis in federal court, claiming, among other things, that the attorneys had breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation for assisting a group of other attorneys in class action claims against Chrysler in several states, including New Jersey. After the judge presiding over the Chrysler case against the attorneys found that Carey and Danis failed to produce certain documents in discovery, the two attorneys were sanctioned. They eventually were ordered to pay $850,000 to Chrysler, which they did.

The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to suspend Carey' license to practice law with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. She argues Carey should be disciplined because he falsely and misleadingly denied the existence of certain communications and documents during discovery after Chrysler sued him. She contends Carey also should be disciplined for willfully representing plaintiffs in a consumer product class action case against Chrysler without Chrysler's consent.

Carey responds that he did not improperly represent plaintiffs in a class action suit against Chrysler because the suit, which involved an allegedly defective antilock braking system, was not substantially related to any matter in which he previously had represented Chrysler. He argues he did not abuse the discovery process or fail to produce requested documents when Chrysler sued him. He also contends he should not be prevented from making that argument to this Court because the issues are different than those decided in the federal courts. Carey argues that, to the extent this Court finds he should be disciplined, the discipline should be a public reprimand rather than a suspension of his license.