Case Summary for May 22, 2001

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for May 22, 2001

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; REPLY BRIEFS, 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

Tuesday, May 22, 2001

SC83356
In re: Daniel L. Franco
Jackson County
Attorney discipline

The Chief Disciplinary Counsel requests the Court suspend Daniel L. Franco's law license, with leave to apply for reinstatement after 90 days or after 6 months, depending on the conduct below. Franco argues that he should be publicly reprimanded or suspended for a lesser amount of time.

The CDC argues Franco violated rules of professional conduct: (1 & 2) Franco represented a client in Kansas without revealing that he was not licensed in Kansas, knowing his conduct would mislead the court. (3) He did not timely respond to the disciplinary committee's requests or appear for a scheduled statement or produce requested records. (4) Franco did not perform a client's legal work or refer the matter elsewhere, nor did he return her calls or respond to her letter.

Franco responds: (1 & 2) Although he represented a client in Kansas without a Kansas license, he reasonably believed the court knew he was not licensed in Kansas, and he thought local counsel would arrive in time. Also, his good character and reputation justify a lesser sanction. (3) Although Franco did not timely respond to the disciplinary committee or appear or produce records, he acknowledges his error in judgment, has mitigating circumstances, and is fit to practice law. (4) Franco did not violate any rule of professional conduct relative to the client. He did not agree to perform work for her, did not have an attorney-client relationship with her for the legal work, did not retain any of her documents, and did not violate any duty to her.

SC83484
State ex rel. Public Service Commission etc. v. The Honorable David C. Dally, etc.
Cole, Jasper, and Buchanan Counties
Water rate increase, venue for review

The Missouri-American Water Company filed a general rate increase case with the Public Service Commission in 1999. After the Commission authorized an increase in 2000, the Company, Gilster Mary-Lee Corporation, the City of Joplin, and a number of others filed petitions for review of the Commission's report and order. This--the Company's in Cole County--was the first such petition filed; six others have been filed in Cole County, two in Jasper County, and one in Buchanan County. The Commission requests this Court prohibit the courts from going forward in the other cases. This Court granted a motion to expedite this case.

The PSC argues that if the multiple suits go forward, it will have to defend the same report and order multiple times in different courts, inevitably leading to inconsistent judgments. These would have to be appealed to different Court of Appeals districts. Moreover, the multiple suits violate the "one-case rule" and section 386.510. Exclusive jurisdiction of these cases is vested in Cole County circuit court.

Intervenor Missouri-American Water Company also argues Joplin and Buchanan County courts must dismiss or transfer the cases to Cole County. The underlying cases duplicate identical proceedings in Cole County, contrary to judicial economy. The principle of abatement precludes the court from adjudicating the others' petitions for review, since the Company filed the first one challenging the same order.

SC83414
State ex rel. Public Service Commission etc. v. The Honorable Randall r. Jackson, etc.
Cole, Jasper, and Buchanan Counties
Water rate increase, venue for review

This case is based on the same issues as the above case.

end