Case Summary for March 2, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for March 2, 2016

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 a.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC95283
State ex rel. City of Grandview, Missouri v. The Honorable Jack R. Grate
Jackson County
Whether city is immune from suit involving traffic stop
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95283.mp3
Grandview was represented during arguments by Christopher L. Heigele of Coronado Katz LLC in Kansas City; the Greens were represented by Christopher P. Sweeny of Turner & Sweeny in Kansas City.

Several Grandview police officers detained and arrested members of the Green family during a November 2012 traffic stop. The Greens subsequently sued the city and the police officers for damages, alleging wrongful arrest, battery, malicious prosecution and negligence against the police officers and alleging the city was vicariously liable for the officers’ alleged acts. At the time of the traffic stop, the city alleges it had an insurance policy that, in part, provided liability coverage for damages resulting from a “law enforcement wrongful act.” The Greens allege the policy on which the city relies was not in effect at the time of the traffic stop. In January 2015, the city filed a motion for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), alleging sovereign immunity bars the Greens’ suit against the city. Following argument by the parties, the circuit court in September 2015 overruled the motion. The city seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any further action other than granting the city’s application for summary judgment.

This case presents several issues for this Court. One is whether sovereign immunity applies under section 537.600, RSMo, or state common law (case law) to protect the city as a matter of law. Another is whether the Greens allege a claim that constitutes an exception to sovereign immunity. Additional related questions involve whether the insurance policy applied at the time of the traffic stop and, if so, whether the city’s purchase of insurance constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity or whether the policy explicitly preserves immunity defenses allowed by law in a suit such as the one filed by the Greens.

SC95283_Grandview_brief.pdf

SC95283_Greens_brief.pdf

SC95283_Grandview_reply_brief.pdf

SC95175
Mary Ann Smith, d/b/a Smith's Kennel v. The Humane Society of the United States and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs
Dent County
Challenge involving defamation, false light claims against advocacy organizations
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95175.mp3
The kennel was represented during arguments by Stephen F. Gaunt of Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield in Rolla; the Humane Society of the United States was represented by Bernard J. Rhodes of Lathrop & Gage LP in Kansas City; and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs was represented by Bryan O. Wade of Husch Blackwell LLP in Springfield.

Mary Ann Smith operates a kennel – a state and federal licensed facility where she breeds and raises dogs (collectively, the kennel) – in Salem, Missouri. In October 2010, The Humane Society for the United States and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs (collectively, the advocacy organizations) released a report accompanied by news releases listing the kennel as one of a “dirty dozen” in Missouri and as among “the worst puppy mills in Missouri.” This report was issued approximately a month before Missourians would vote on Proposition B, referred to as the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.” Voters passed the proposition at the November 2010 election and, by its terms was scheduled to take effect in November 2011. Legislation was filed during the legislative session beginning in January 2011 to weaken or repeal Proposition B. In March 2011, the advocacy organizations issued a follow-up report. Both reports stated that the facilities identified do not provide humane care to their dogs. Also in March 2011, the kennel sued the advocacy organizations, alleging defamation-negligence, defamation-false statements and invasion of privacy-false light. The kennel alleged the reports falsely claimed the selections of the breeders listed were based on the number and severity of animal welfare violations and falsely called the kennel a “puppy mill.” The advocacy organizations filed motions to dismiss. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the kennel’s claims, with prejudice (preventing the kennel from filing them again). The kennel appeals.

This appeal presents several issues for the Court related to whether the kennel stated claims on which relief can be granted. One is whether the kennel, in its two defamation claims, pleaded facts sufficient to establish that the advocacy organizations published false statements of fact and false statements implying knowledge of facts that identified the kennel, damaged the kennel’s reputation and were published with the requisite degree of fault. Related to this is whether the advocacy organizations’ description of the kennel as a “puppy mill” and ranking of the kennel as one of the “worst puppy mills” in Missouri – especially in the context of the political campaign – are protected by the First Amendment as classic name-calling or subjective opinion for which truth or falsity cannot be proven. Another question is whether the kennel can allege the advocacy organizations made false statements that injured the kennel’s reputation in a claim for false light-invasion of privacy or whether such allegations are limited to claims of defamation. Related to this is whether the advocacy organizations’ statements involved matters of legitimate public interest – proposition B and government reports of animal welfare violations.

A number of media and better business organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. Their arguments focus on whether the advocacy organizations’ identification of the kennel as a “puppy mill” and among the state’s “worst” puppy mills – in the context of the campaign to support Proposition B – were constitutionally protected opinions based on disclosed, truthful facts.

The Missouri Press Association also filed a brief as a friend of the Court. Its arguments focus on whether the kennel properly pleaded that the advocacy organizations’ statements put the kennel in a false public light or whether the statements on which the kennel bases its claims are statements of opinion that cannot constitute false statements.

SC95175_Smith_Kennels_brief.pdf

SC95175_Humane_Society_of_US_brief.pdf

SC95175_Missourians_for_the_Protection_of_Dogs_brief.pdf

SC95175_Smith_Kennels_reply_brief.pdf

SC95175_media_and_better_business_organizations_amici_brief.pdf

SC95175_MO_Press_Assoc_Amici_brief.pdf

SC95318
State of Missouri v. Amanda N. Bazell
Cass County

By order dated January 27, his case was removed from the March 2 argument docket for rescheduling at a later date.