The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 3, 2018
SC96731
Cass County, Missouri v. Director of Revenue and City of Lee's Summit
Cass County
Dispute over local sales tax proceeds paid to the incorrect local jurisdiction
Listen to the oral argument: SC96731 MP3 file
Cass County was represented during arguments by Michael G. Berry of Berry Wilson LLC in Jefferson City; the director was represented by Deputy Solicitor Julie Blake of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; and Lee’s Summit was represented by the city’s chief of litigation, Zachary Cartwright.
Lee’s Summit is located in both Cass and Jackson counties. Lee’s Summit and Cass County have enacted a local sales tax on domestic utilities, as allowed by section 144.032, RSMo, while Jackson County has not. All three jurisdictions have residents served by Kansas City Power & Light. Although KCP&L collected the correct amount of local sales tax from its Lee’s Summit customers, for three years it incorrectly reported to the state’s department of revenue the source of these collections was for payment of Cass County’s local sales tax, failing to report that any of these collections was for payment of Lee’s Summit’s local sales tax. A department auditor notified KCP&L of its reporting error, and the utility amended its tax returns. In March 2016, the director of revenue issued a final decision to redistribute nearly $966,700 in local sales tax from Cass County to Lee’s Summit by withholding a monthly amount of local sales tax the director would collect on behalf of the county over a three-year period and paying those funds to Lee’s Summit. Cass County appealed to the state’s administrative hearing commission. Following a hearing, the commission issued its decision finding the director has a duty to redistribute funds from Cass County to Lee’s Summit under sections 94.500 through 94.550, RSMo. It concluded the director has the legal authority to withhold and redistribute to Lee’s Summit nearly $966,700 in local sales taxes to correct the erroneous payments. Cass County seeks this Court’s review.
This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether the director has the legal authority to order redistribution of local sales tax funds from Cass County to Lee’s Summit. A related issue involves whether the director is holding these local sales taxes in trust for the county pursuant to section 67.525, RSMo, and, if so, whether KCP&L first must apply for a refund under sections 144.100 and 144.190, RSMo, before the director can redistribute money from the fund to Lee’s Summit. An additional question involves whether the commission had jurisdiction to review the director’s automatic processing of the amended sales tax returns.
SC96731_Cass_County_corrected_brief
SC96731_Lee's_Summit_brief
SC96731_Director_of_Revenue_brief
SC96731_Cass_County_reply_brief
SC96796
State of Missouri v. Alok Kumar Rohra
St. Louis city
Challenge to basis for charging man with unlawful possession of a firearm
Listen to the oral argument: SC96796 MP3 file
Rohra was represented during arguments by Joel J. Schwartz of Rosenblum, Schwartz & Fry PC in Clayton; the state was represented by Gregory L. Barnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
After a traffic stop, law enforcement officers found drugs and paraphernalia in Alok Rohra’s vehicle and found he was in possession of a firearm. They arrested Rohra, and the state filed charges against him including one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Rohra moved to dismiss this charge, alleging he was not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm under section 571.070, RSMo. He alleged, although he had pleaded guilty to felony drug charges in 2013 in Oklahoma, he received deferred sentencing, which he argued is the equivalent to a suspended imposition of sentence in Missouri and, therefore, did not result in a conviction. The circuit court overruled his motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion to quash the indictment. Rohra ultimately pleaded guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced him to prison, suspended execution of the sentences and placed him on probation for two years. Rohra appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether Rohra was “convicted” under Oklahoma law of a crime that would be a felony if committed in Missouri and, if not, whether the unlawful possession charge against Rohra failed to include an essential element of the crime. A related issue involves whether Rohra waived his claim on appeal by withdrawing his motion or by pleading guilty.
SC96796_Rohra_brief
SC96796_State_brief
SC96796_Rohra_reply_brief
SC96993
Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC; Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission; and Missouri Landowners Alliance v. Public Service Commission
Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Clinton, Monroe, Ralls and Randolph counties
Challenge to denial of a certificate to authorize an interstate electrical transmission line
Listen to the oral argument: SC96993 MP3 file
Grain Belt Express was represented during arguments by Jeremiah W. Nixon and John Rehmann of Dowd Bennett LLP in St. Louis; the municipal electric utility commission was represented by Peggy Whipple of the Healy Law Offices LLP in Jefferson City; the public service commission was represented by Jennifer Heintz of the commission in Jefferson City; and the landowners alliance was represented by Paul Agathen, an attorney in Washington, Missouri.
In August 2016, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC filed an application with the public service commission for a “certificate of convenience and necessity” authorizing it to build an electric transmission line (and associated facilities) across Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe and Ralls counties in northern Missouri. This is one segment of a proposed line Grain Belt would use to carry electricity from wind farms in western Kansas into Missouri and states farther east. Grain Belt told the commission Missouri is the final state in which it needs regulatory approval to proceed with its project. In determining whether a project is convenient or necessary, the commission applies five criteria: there must be a need for the service the applicant proposes to provide; the proposal must be economically feasible; the applicant must have the financial ability to provide the proposed service; the applicant must be qualified to provide the service; and the proposed service must be in the public interest. Other parties in the case include the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, an action agency allowing nonprofit utilities to pool resources to purchase electricity they would have difficulty purchasing on their own; and the Missouri Landowners Alliance. The Sierra Club and Renew Missouri Advocates were allowed to intervene in the case.
Prior to holding evidentiary hearings, the commission required all the parties to present their testimony in written form and to distribute the testimony to all parties prior to the evidentiary hearings. More than 50 witnesses prefiled written testimony, and many attached supporting documents, called “schedules,” to their prefiled testimony. The landowners alliance moved to strike certain schedules submitted by other parties, alleging the documents were inadmissible because their authors did not submit testimony to support the accuracy of their documents and, therefore, were not subject to cross examination. The landowners alliance also moved to strike testimony that relied on the documents it challenged. In addition, the landowners alliance filed a motion to compel Grain Belt to provide full and complete answers to the landowners alliance’s request for data supporting Grain Belt’s contention about the low cost of energy it proposed to supply from the wind farms in western Kansas. The administrative law judge overruled all three of the landowners alliance’s motions.
Following evidentiary hearings, the commission in August 2017 issued its final report and order denying Grain Belt’s application for a certificate. The commission found it lacked statutory authority to issue the certificate because it Grain Belt failed to show it had obtained consent from the county commissions in the affected counties pursuant to section 229.100, RSMo – as required by a 2017 appeals court opinion, decided while Grain Belt’s application was pending, regarding an Ameren transmission line. In a concurring opinion, four of the five commissioners stated, absent this appellate opinion, they would have found Grain Belt met all five criteria and would have voted to grant Grain Belt’s application. Grain Belt, the municipal electric utility commission and the landowners alliance appeal, presenting a variety of questions for this Court.
Grain Belt’s appeal
The primary question presented involves whether the commission should have denied Grain Belt’s application based on the 2017 appeals court opinion and whether that appellate opinion itself is correct. One related issue involves the impact of any distinction between certificates of convenience and need pursuant to two provisions of section 393.170, RSMo – one involving an area certificate and the other involving a line certificate such as what Grain Belt sought. Other issues include whether the appellate opinion incorrectly overruled prior judicial precedent or contravened legislative intent for the commission to regulate and facilitate statewide energy infrastructure. Another issue includes whether the commission’s regulations permit it to grant Grain Belt a waiver or variance of the requirements of filing the county assents.
As intervenors, the Sierra Club and Renew Missouri argue the commission should have issued Grain Belt’s request for a line certification under subsection 1 of section 393.170, which they argue the 2017 appellate decision regarding the Ameren request did not address. They also argue section 229.100 only allows counties to deny assent if the utility refuses to abide by county road regulations, while the commission’s authority to ensure uniform utility regulation throughout the state includes general supervising power over transmission lines.
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission’s appeal
One question involves whether the commission misconstrued the Western District’s 2017 opinion as abrogating the commission’s authority to grant the certificate of convenience and necessity in deference to the authority of county commissions to ensure the safety of their public roads’ rights of way. Another question involves whether the commission should have admitted into evidence, after the hearings concluded, two exhibits created in an unrelated, closed case to which the electric utility commission was not a party. A related issue is whether the admission of these exhibits violated the electric utility commission’s state due process rights. A further question involves whether the commission erred in denying Grain Belt’s application after four of the five commissioners found the proposed project would have short- and long-term benefits for Missouri and its citizens.
Missouri Landowners Alliance’s appeal
One question involves whether the documents the landowners alliance challenged were admissible under section 536.070, RSMo, when the authors of the documents did not testify about the documents and were not subject to cross-examination about the documents. Another involves whether testimony based on or relying on the disputed documents lacked foundation or otherwise was inadmissible. An additional question involves whether the landowners alliance should have been granted access during discovery to data or other information supporting Grain Belt’s contention about the low price at which it can sell power from its proposed line. A related issue is whether, in denying such access, the commission violated the landowners alliance’s constitutional rights or otherwise precluded it from preparing its testimony and for cross examination. A further question involves whether the concurring opinion constituted an illegal advisory opinion or otherwise was unlawful, unreasonable or unnecessary.
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief
SC96993_MO_Joint_Municipal_Electric_Utility_Comm'n_brief
SC96993_Grain_Belt_Express_Clean_Line_LLC_brief
SC96993_Public_Service_Commission_brief
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_Sierra_Club_and_Renew_Missouri
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_MO_Joint_Municipal_Electric_Utility_Comm'n
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_Grain_Belt_Express_Clean_Line_LLC
SC96993_Sierra_Club_and_Renew_Missouri_intervenors_brief
SC96905
In re: Corinne N. Darvish
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96905 MP3 file
Chief Disciplinary Counsel Alan Pratzel represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Darvish was represented by Michael Downey of the Downey Law Group LLC in St. Louis.
St. Louis County attorney Corinne Darvish has been a solo practitioner since 2002. She previously was admonished for violating the rule governing safekeeping of client property and suspended for failing to pay taxes. In 2010, she was hired to represent a Missouri not-for-profit corporation that provides endowment scholarships for underprivileged children to continue their educations. In 2015, the nonprofit’s primary administrator – who also controlled the nonprofit’s two bank accounts – died, and his widow became the primary administrator. She hired Darvish to close those bank accounts and move the funds to a different bank in a new account to be controlled by the widow. The first bank closed the accounts and mailed Darvish two checks – totaling nearly $17,000 – made payable to the widow “c/o Corinne Darvish.” In September 2015, Darvish opened a new account at the new bank but deposited the checks into her client trust account and did not transfer all those funds into the nonprofit’s new bank account. The widow ultimately retained counsel to demand payment of the remaining money due the nonprofit and a billing statement of work Darvish had done for the nonprofit. The widow also filed a complaint against Darvish with the chief disciplinary counsel’s office. The office conducted an audit, which revealed Darvish deposited nearly $17,000 of the nonprofit’s funds in September 2015 into her client trust account, which previously had a balance of approximately $213; over the next 10 months, made a number of withdrawals from the trust account totaling just more than $17,000, including cash withdrawals deposited into her personal operating account; was unable to produce records documenting these transactions or reconciling her accounts; and let her trust account balance fall below $1,000 on numerous occasions and into a negative balance in September 2016. Because Darvish did not deposit all the nonprofit’s funds into its new bank account, the audit found, the widow wrote checks resulting in insufficient funds, impeding the nonprofit’s ability to hold its principal fundraising event. In June 2017, Darvish gave the widow a personal check in the amount of $17,000 “to fully and rightfully deliver the funds” to the nonprofit. The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings against Darvish, and a regional disciplinary hearing panel conducted a hearing in August 2016. The panel found Darvish had violated three rules of professional conduct and recommended she be disbarred. Darvish rejected the panel’s recommendation and asks this Court to impose no more than a stayed suspension with a two-year probation based on mitigating factors. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to disbar Darvish.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Darvish violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC96905_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96905_Darvish_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96796 MP3 file
Rohra was represented during arguments by Joel J. Schwartz of Rosenblum, Schwartz & Fry PC in Clayton; the state was represented by Gregory L. Barnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
After a traffic stop, law enforcement officers found drugs and paraphernalia in Alok Rohra’s vehicle and found he was in possession of a firearm. They arrested Rohra, and the state filed charges against him including one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Rohra moved to dismiss this charge, alleging he was not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm under section 571.070, RSMo. He alleged, although he had pleaded guilty to felony drug charges in 2013 in Oklahoma, he received deferred sentencing, which he argued is the equivalent to a suspended imposition of sentence in Missouri and, therefore, did not result in a conviction. The circuit court overruled his motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion to quash the indictment. Rohra ultimately pleaded guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced him to prison, suspended execution of the sentences and placed him on probation for two years. Rohra appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether Rohra was “convicted” under Oklahoma law of a crime that would be a felony if committed in Missouri and, if not, whether the unlawful possession charge against Rohra failed to include an essential element of the crime. A related issue involves whether Rohra waived his claim on appeal by withdrawing his motion or by pleading guilty.
SC96796_Rohra_brief
SC96796_State_brief
SC96796_Rohra_reply_brief
SC96993
Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC; Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission; and Missouri Landowners Alliance v. Public Service Commission
Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Clinton, Monroe, Ralls and Randolph counties
Challenge to denial of a certificate to authorize an interstate electrical transmission line
Listen to the oral argument: SC96993 MP3 file
Grain Belt Express was represented during arguments by Jeremiah W. Nixon and John Rehmann of Dowd Bennett LLP in St. Louis; the municipal electric utility commission was represented by Peggy Whipple of the Healy Law Offices LLP in Jefferson City; the public service commission was represented by Jennifer Heintz of the commission in Jefferson City; and the landowners alliance was represented by Paul Agathen, an attorney in Washington, Missouri.
In August 2016, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC filed an application with the public service commission for a “certificate of convenience and necessity” authorizing it to build an electric transmission line (and associated facilities) across Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe and Ralls counties in northern Missouri. This is one segment of a proposed line Grain Belt would use to carry electricity from wind farms in western Kansas into Missouri and states farther east. Grain Belt told the commission Missouri is the final state in which it needs regulatory approval to proceed with its project. In determining whether a project is convenient or necessary, the commission applies five criteria: there must be a need for the service the applicant proposes to provide; the proposal must be economically feasible; the applicant must have the financial ability to provide the proposed service; the applicant must be qualified to provide the service; and the proposed service must be in the public interest. Other parties in the case include the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, an action agency allowing nonprofit utilities to pool resources to purchase electricity they would have difficulty purchasing on their own; and the Missouri Landowners Alliance. The Sierra Club and Renew Missouri Advocates were allowed to intervene in the case.
Prior to holding evidentiary hearings, the commission required all the parties to present their testimony in written form and to distribute the testimony to all parties prior to the evidentiary hearings. More than 50 witnesses prefiled written testimony, and many attached supporting documents, called “schedules,” to their prefiled testimony. The landowners alliance moved to strike certain schedules submitted by other parties, alleging the documents were inadmissible because their authors did not submit testimony to support the accuracy of their documents and, therefore, were not subject to cross examination. The landowners alliance also moved to strike testimony that relied on the documents it challenged. In addition, the landowners alliance filed a motion to compel Grain Belt to provide full and complete answers to the landowners alliance’s request for data supporting Grain Belt’s contention about the low cost of energy it proposed to supply from the wind farms in western Kansas. The administrative law judge overruled all three of the landowners alliance’s motions.
Following evidentiary hearings, the commission in August 2017 issued its final report and order denying Grain Belt’s application for a certificate. The commission found it lacked statutory authority to issue the certificate because it Grain Belt failed to show it had obtained consent from the county commissions in the affected counties pursuant to section 229.100, RSMo – as required by a 2017 appeals court opinion, decided while Grain Belt’s application was pending, regarding an Ameren transmission line. In a concurring opinion, four of the five commissioners stated, absent this appellate opinion, they would have found Grain Belt met all five criteria and would have voted to grant Grain Belt’s application. Grain Belt, the municipal electric utility commission and the landowners alliance appeal, presenting a variety of questions for this Court.
Grain Belt’s appeal
The primary question presented involves whether the commission should have denied Grain Belt’s application based on the 2017 appeals court opinion and whether that appellate opinion itself is correct. One related issue involves the impact of any distinction between certificates of convenience and need pursuant to two provisions of section 393.170, RSMo – one involving an area certificate and the other involving a line certificate such as what Grain Belt sought. Other issues include whether the appellate opinion incorrectly overruled prior judicial precedent or contravened legislative intent for the commission to regulate and facilitate statewide energy infrastructure. Another issue includes whether the commission’s regulations permit it to grant Grain Belt a waiver or variance of the requirements of filing the county assents.
As intervenors, the Sierra Club and Renew Missouri argue the commission should have issued Grain Belt’s request for a line certification under subsection 1 of section 393.170, which they argue the 2017 appellate decision regarding the Ameren request did not address. They also argue section 229.100 only allows counties to deny assent if the utility refuses to abide by county road regulations, while the commission’s authority to ensure uniform utility regulation throughout the state includes general supervising power over transmission lines.
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission’s appeal
One question involves whether the commission misconstrued the Western District’s 2017 opinion as abrogating the commission’s authority to grant the certificate of convenience and necessity in deference to the authority of county commissions to ensure the safety of their public roads’ rights of way. Another question involves whether the commission should have admitted into evidence, after the hearings concluded, two exhibits created in an unrelated, closed case to which the electric utility commission was not a party. A related issue is whether the admission of these exhibits violated the electric utility commission’s state due process rights. A further question involves whether the commission erred in denying Grain Belt’s application after four of the five commissioners found the proposed project would have short- and long-term benefits for Missouri and its citizens.
Missouri Landowners Alliance’s appeal
One question involves whether the documents the landowners alliance challenged were admissible under section 536.070, RSMo, when the authors of the documents did not testify about the documents and were not subject to cross-examination about the documents. Another involves whether testimony based on or relying on the disputed documents lacked foundation or otherwise was inadmissible. An additional question involves whether the landowners alliance should have been granted access during discovery to data or other information supporting Grain Belt’s contention about the low price at which it can sell power from its proposed line. A related issue is whether, in denying such access, the commission violated the landowners alliance’s constitutional rights or otherwise precluded it from preparing its testimony and for cross examination. A further question involves whether the concurring opinion constituted an illegal advisory opinion or otherwise was unlawful, unreasonable or unnecessary.
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief
SC96993_MO_Joint_Municipal_Electric_Utility_Comm'n_brief
SC96993_Grain_Belt_Express_Clean_Line_LLC_brief
SC96993_Public_Service_Commission_brief
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_Sierra_Club_and_Renew_Missouri
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_MO_Joint_Municipal_Electric_Utility_Comm'n
SC96993_MO_Landowners_Alliance_brief_responding_to_Grain_Belt_Express_Clean_Line_LLC
SC96993_Sierra_Club_and_Renew_Missouri_intervenors_brief
SC96905
In re: Corinne N. Darvish
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96905 MP3 file
Chief Disciplinary Counsel Alan Pratzel represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Darvish was represented by Michael Downey of the Downey Law Group LLC in St. Louis.
St. Louis County attorney Corinne Darvish has been a solo practitioner since 2002. She previously was admonished for violating the rule governing safekeeping of client property and suspended for failing to pay taxes. In 2010, she was hired to represent a Missouri not-for-profit corporation that provides endowment scholarships for underprivileged children to continue their educations. In 2015, the nonprofit’s primary administrator – who also controlled the nonprofit’s two bank accounts – died, and his widow became the primary administrator. She hired Darvish to close those bank accounts and move the funds to a different bank in a new account to be controlled by the widow. The first bank closed the accounts and mailed Darvish two checks – totaling nearly $17,000 – made payable to the widow “c/o Corinne Darvish.” In September 2015, Darvish opened a new account at the new bank but deposited the checks into her client trust account and did not transfer all those funds into the nonprofit’s new bank account. The widow ultimately retained counsel to demand payment of the remaining money due the nonprofit and a billing statement of work Darvish had done for the nonprofit. The widow also filed a complaint against Darvish with the chief disciplinary counsel’s office. The office conducted an audit, which revealed Darvish deposited nearly $17,000 of the nonprofit’s funds in September 2015 into her client trust account, which previously had a balance of approximately $213; over the next 10 months, made a number of withdrawals from the trust account totaling just more than $17,000, including cash withdrawals deposited into her personal operating account; was unable to produce records documenting these transactions or reconciling her accounts; and let her trust account balance fall below $1,000 on numerous occasions and into a negative balance in September 2016. Because Darvish did not deposit all the nonprofit’s funds into its new bank account, the audit found, the widow wrote checks resulting in insufficient funds, impeding the nonprofit’s ability to hold its principal fundraising event. In June 2017, Darvish gave the widow a personal check in the amount of $17,000 “to fully and rightfully deliver the funds” to the nonprofit. The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings against Darvish, and a regional disciplinary hearing panel conducted a hearing in August 2016. The panel found Darvish had violated three rules of professional conduct and recommended she be disbarred. Darvish rejected the panel’s recommendation and asks this Court to impose no more than a stayed suspension with a two-year probation based on mitigating factors. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to disbar Darvish.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Darvish violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC96905_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96905_Darvish_brief