Case Summary for April 5, 2011

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for April 5, 2011

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 docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2011

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC91228
St. Louis County v. Prestige Travel, et al.
St. Louis County
Challenge to constitutional validity of act granting tax exemptions to online travel companies
Listen to the oral argument:

The county was represented during arguments by Joe D. Jacobson of Green Jacobson P.C. in Clayton, and the companies were represented by James F. Bennet of Dowd Bennett L.L.P. in St. Louis.

In July 2009, St. Louis County and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission filed suit against a group of online travel companies. They alleged the companies contracted with hotel and motel operators to secure guest rooms at discounted rates; sold the rooms to third-party travelers at marked-up rates; and violated Missouri law by not collecting local hotel taxes on the difference between the marked-up rates and the discounted rates. The companies filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. While the suit was pending, the legislature passed House Bill No. 1442, which enacted 19 statutory sections, including a section providing that local hotel taxes “apply to amounts actually received by” the operator and that “[u]nder no circumstances shall a travel agent or intermediary be deemed an operator ….” Subsequently, the trial court reconsidered the companies’ motion to dismiss and granted it. The county and commission appeal.

The county argues the trial court erred in dismissing the petition in reliance on HB 1442. It argues the bill violates article III, section 39(5) of the Missouri Constitution by removing the companies’ existing tax obligations. Further, they contend the bill violates the Missouri Constitution’s single subject, clear title and original purpose requirements of article III, sections 21 and 23.

The companies respond that the county waived the right to bring a constitutional challenge and, alternatively, the relevant taxes in existence prior to the bill’s enactment did not clearly and undoubtedly impose tax liability on the companies. Further, they argue the county cannot show that the bill clearly and undoubtedly violates the Missouri Constitution’s single subject, clear title or original purpose requirements.

The attorney general argues, as a friend of the Court, that the county cannot meet the burden of showing that the bill violates the Missouri Constitution’s single subject, clear title or original purpose requirements because this Court presumes legislative acts are procedurally and substantively valid.

SC91275
Bryant Keith Blanks v. Stephanie A. Faulkner
Henry County
Constitutional challenge to application of statutory interpretation of family access procedures
Listen to the oral argument:

The mother was represented during arguments by James D. Jenkins of Legal Aid of Western Missouri.

In October 2007, the trial court entered judgment in a paternity action, finding a man to be the natural father of a mother’s child. The judgment set out a parenting claim detailing a custody and visitation schedule. In August 2010, the mother filed a motion for a family access order pursuant to 452.400.3, RSMo, alleging the father violated the terms of the paternity judgment. The trial court denied the motion, finding it lacked the statutory authority under section 452.400.3 to grant the requested relief in a paternity action because section 452.400.3 applies only to custody and visitation decrees contained in judgments of dissolution of marriage or legal separation.

The mother argues the trial court erred in denying her motion for a family access order based on its finding that it lacked authority under section 452.400.3. She contends the trial court’s statutory interpretation violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution because it excludes non-martial children from receiving the court’s benefits.

The father did not respond.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri and the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri argue, as friends of the Court, that excluding non-marital families from the family access motion procedures of section 452.400.3 has a disparate impact on suspect classifications of persons, which, it contends, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

SC91307
DeWayne Sprenger v. Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division of Alcohol & Tobacco Control
Cole County
Challenge to amount of attorneys’ fees due to plaintiff
Listen to the oral argument:

Sprenger was represented during arguments by David J. Moen, a solo practitioner, in Jefferson City, and the department was represented by Theodore A. Bruce of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City.

For 11 years, DeWayne Sprenger was employed by the Missouri Department of Public Safety’s alcohol and tobacco division. After Sprenger received a termination letter from his supervisor, he appealed his termination to an administrative board. Based on the board’s recommendation, the department reinstated Sprenger. Sprenger subsequently filed a petition for attorneys’ fees with the trial court. In January 2007, the trial court granted Sprenger attorneys’ fees at the statutory rate of $75 per hour. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals held Sprenger was entitled to attorneys’ fees but remanded the case, ordering the department to convene a hearing and determine the amount of attorneys’ fees due Sprenger. The board awarded Sprenger attorney fees’ at the statutory rate of $75 per hour. Sprenger appeals.

Sprenger argues the department erred in awarding attorneys’ fees of just $75 per hour. He contends the department acted unreasonably, abused its discretion, acted contrary to the law and based its decision on conclusions not supported by competent evidence. He asserts that only a limited number of attorneys were qualified to take his case and that no competent attorney would have taken his case for $75 per hour.

The department responds that it correctly awarded Sprenger attorneys’ fees at the statutory rate of $75 per hour. The department argues it is within the legislature’s authority to set the rate of recovery for attorneys’ fees, even if that amount is deemed inadequate by the courts.