SC96696
State of Missouri v. Justin Luke Ward
Polk County
Challenge to finding sexual misconduct statute to be unconstitutionally overbroad
Listen to the oral argument: SC96696 MP3 file
The state was represented during arguments by Deputy Solicitor Joshua Divine of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; Ward was represented by Ellen Flottman of the public defender’s office in Columbia.

The state charged Justin Ward with one count of sexual misconduct involving a child by indecent exposure for conduct occurring in July 2016, when Ward was 18 years old and the victim was 14 years old. The case was tried to the circuit court on stipulated facts. The circuit court issued its judgment finding, because the statute under which Ward was charged made it illegal for him to expose himself only because of the victim’s age, the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. The circuit court found Ward not guilty. The state appeals.

This appeal presents two primary questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court’s “not guilty” finding resolves factual elements of the charged offense sufficiently to constitute an acquittal, from which the state cannot appeal, or is more akin to a dismissal following a finding of guilt, from which the state can appeal. Another question involves whether the circuit court erred in finding the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. Related issues include whether Ward waived his constitutional claims by failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity, whether there are circumstances in which the statute constitutionally can be applied, whether the statute is overbroad as applied to Ward and whether application of the statute violates Ward’s substantive due process right to privacy.

SC96696_State_redacted_brief
SC96696_Ward_redacted_brief
SC96696_State_reply_brief



SC97006
State ex rel. PPG Industries Inc. v. The Honorable Maura B. McShane
St. Louis County

Challenge to exercise of jurisdiction over out-of-state company
Listen to the oral argument: SC97006 MP3 file
PPG was represented during arguments by Dennis Dobbels of Polsinelli PC in Kansas City; Hilboldt was represented by Philip Christofferson of Cockriel & Christofferson LLC in St. Louis.

PPG Industries is incorporated and headquartered in Pennsylvania. Hilboldt Curtainwall Inc. sued PPG in St. Louis County for negligent representation, alleging PPG made a general statement on its website that Finishing Dynamics LLC, based in Georgia, was an extrusion applicator “approved” to apply certain PPG coatings. Hilboldt alleged Finishing Dynamics failed to clean or pretreat properly the aluminum extrusions or failed to apply the coatings properly to the extrusions. PPG moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the fact its website is accessible in Missouri is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over PPG. Hilboldt argued the circuit court constitutionally could exercise jurisdiction over PPG, noting PPG had engaged in litigation in Missouri courts, is registered with Missouri’s secretary of state, has retail stores in Missouri and has sales agents who visit Missouri. The circuit court overruled the motion to dismiss. PPG seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from exercising personal jurisdiction over it.

This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court can exercise personal jurisdiction over PPG. Related issues include whether the lawsuit arises from or relates to any of PPG’s in-state activities, whether PPG’s contacts with Missouri are substantial enough to satisfy due process requirements, whether the company’s website is sufficient to trigger jurisdiction under the state’s “long arm” statute, and whether Hilboldt should be permitted to seek additional discovery about PPG’s website and contacts with Missouri.

SC97006_PPG_Industries_brief
SC97006_Hilboldt_brief

SC97006_PPG_Industries_reply_brief

SC96977
State ex rel. Cedar Crest Apartments LLC and Peterson Properties Inc. d/b/a/ The Peterson Companies v. The Honorable Jack Grate
Jackson County
Challenge to exercise of jurisdiction over out-of-state companies
Listen to the oral argument: SC96977 MP3 file
Cedar Crest and Peterson were represented during arguments by Nikki Cannezzaro of Franke, Schultz & Mullen PC in Kansas City; Martinez was represented by Mark Parrish of Boyd Kenter Thomas & Parrish LLC in Independence.

Kansas resident Lincoln Rene Aquiriano Martinez sued a number of defendants in Jackson County, alleging he sustained personal injuries as a result of an electrical shock that occurred when a ladder he was moving became charged with high-electrical voltage from an overhead power line while working at an apartment complex in Overland Park, Kansas. He alleges two of the defendants – Cedar Crest Apartments LLC and Peterson Properties Inc., doing business as The Peterson Companies – owned, controlled or maintained the property where he alleges he was injured. Both companies are incorporated in Kansas, where both have their principal place of business. Cedar Crest and Peterson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over them. Martinez has noted the companies own property in Missouri, transact business in Missouri and use its court system. He further asserts the companies’ decisions regarding control and management of the property where he alleges he was injured are controlled by another defendant that is a Missouri corporation. The circuit court overruled the motion without making specific findings whether the companies were subject to its general or specific jurisdiction. Cedar Crest and Peterson now seek this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from exercising personal jurisdiction over them.

This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the companies. Related issues include whether the lawsuit arises from or relates to any of the companies’ in-state activities, whether the companies’ contacts with Missouri are substantial enough to trigger the state’s “long arm” statute or satisfy due process requirements, whether the companies can be regarded as “essentially at home” in Missouri, and whether the companies have demonstrated the circuit court clearly is acting outside its authority.

SC96977_Cedar_Crest_and_Peterson_brief
SC96977_Martinez_brief
SC96977_Cedar_Crest_and_Peterson_reply_brief



SC96903
Myron Green Corporation v. Director of Revenue
Jackson County
Challenge to tax assessment on sales of food in bank’s employee cafeteria
Listen to the oral argument: SC96903 MP3 file
Myron Green was represented during arguments by Todd Ruskamp of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Kansas City; the director was represented by General Counsel Michael Martinich-Sauter of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Myron Green Corporation contracted with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City to prepare and serve meals, snacks and beverages in the bank’s on-site employee cafeteria. Myron Green invoiced the bank for all its food costs and management fees associated with the cafeteria. The bank is tax-exempt, and Myron Green did not charge sales tax on its invoices to the bank. The bank subsidized the cost of the food and drinks in its cafeteria. In about 80 percent of purchases, employees used a swipe card, and the bank deducted the cost of these purchases from the employees’ after-tax paychecks. Following an audit, the state’s director of revenue determined payments attributable to items employees purchased from the bank’s cafeteria constituted taxable sales between Myron Green and the individual employees and, therefore, were not covered by the bank’s tax-exempt status. The director further concluded the cafeteria qualified under state law as a place where meals are served regularly to the public and, therefore, are subject to sales tax. The director concluded Myron Green had sold nearly $3 million in food and beverages to the bank’s employees rather than the bank and assessed the company more than $200,000 in unpaid sales taxes and interest. The company appealed to the administrative hearing commission, which upheld the director’s assessment. Myron Green seeks this Court’s review.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court regarding whether Myron Green owes sales tax under state law. One involves whether the Myron Green’s sales were to bank employees or to the bank itself and the extent, if any, to which the bank’s tax-exempt status can extend to its food vendor or to purchases its employees made in its cafeteria. Another issue involves whether the bank’s cafeteria or Myron Green’s food service sales can be considered as regularly serving food or drinks to the public. A further issue is whether the commission’s decision overrules relevant case law or otherwise invalidates the existing understanding of a “sale” under state revenue laws.

SC96903_Myron_Green_Corporation_brief
SC96903_Director_brief
SC96903_Myron_Green_Corporation_reply_brief