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, March 5, 2019
SC97427
State ex rel. Carlos D. Alsup v. The Honorable James F. Kanatzar
Jackson County
Availability of official immunity in suit by student against teacher
Listen to the oral argument: SC97427 MP3 file
Alsup was represented during arguments by J. Andrew Marriott of EdCounsel LLC in Independence; the student was represented by Timothy H. Bosler Jr. of Bosler Law Firm PC in Liberty.
Carlos Alsup was employed as an in-school suspension teacher at Independence Academy, an alternative school operated by the Independence school district. Israel Mariano is a student at the academy. Mariano alleges Alsup physically restrained him in a negligent manner, injuring Mariano’s arm. Mariano sued Alsup. Alsup alleges restraining Mariano was necessary under district policy to prevent Mariano from harming himself, others or district property. He alleges he used no greater force than necessary under the circumstances. After the circuit court overruled his motions to dismiss, Alsup moved for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), alleging he had official immunity. The circuit court overruled his motion. Alsup seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than to vacate its order and grant him summary judgment.
This case presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether there is any dispute whether Alsup was acting as a public official at the time he restrained Mariano, whether his act was discretionary or ministerial, whether the manner of restraint was proper or legally mandated, and whether Alsup was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of official immunity. The other question involves the extent of official immunity protections and prohibition as a remedy.
SC97427_Alsup_brief
SC97427_Mariano_brief
SC97427_Alsup_reply_brief
SC97349
Trustees of Clayton Terrace Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace LLC and Jeannette R. Huey, Trustee of the Jane R. Huey Lifetime Trust Agreement Dated May 21, 1998
St. Louis County
Challenges to sale and subdivision of property, award of attorney fees
Listen to the oral argument: SC97349 MP3 file
6 Clayton Terrace was represented during arguments by Steven M. Cohen of Berger, Cohen & Brandt LC in Clayton; Huey was represented by John Hein of Hein Schneider & Bond PC in St. Louis; and the Clayton Terrace trustees were represented by Todd Hamby of Carmody MacDonald PC in St. Louis.
A woman’s lifetime trust owned a two-acre lot in the Clayton Terrace subdivision in Frontenac. After the woman’s death, Jeannette Huey, the woman’s daughter and trustee of the woman’s trust, listed the property for sale as she worked to dispose of the trust’s assets and finalize her mother’s estate. A company purchased the property. Questions later arose about whether, before closing, Huey’s real estate agent hand-delivered a notice of sale to each home in the subdivision, as well as about the extent to which the homeowners waived their right of first refusal. At or before closing, the buyer assigned the sale contract to another company, 6 Clayton Terrace LLC, and the sale closed as scheduled. The LLC subsequently renovated the lot’s home and pool, and Huey finalized her mother’s estate. The LLC later applied to the city to subdivide the lot into two lots. The city approved the LLC’s application and preliminary plat over the objections of the subdivision trustees. The trustees sued Huey, seeking to void the sale of the property to the LLC, and the LLC, seeking to enjoin it from building a second residence on the lot or selling any interest in any portion of the original lot. Huey filed a counterclaim against the trustees for abuse of process, alleging they attempted to coerce the LLC into withdrawing or abandoning its request to subdivide the property by purporting to put its title in jeopardy. The parties ultimately proceeded to a trial before a judge rather than a jury. As to the trustees’ claim against Huey and her counterclaim, the circuit court entered its judgment in favor of Huey. As to the trustees’ claim against the LLC, the circuit court entered judgment in the trustees’ favor, enjoining the LLC’s development plan for the property. The circuit court awarded certain attorney fees and costs to the trustees and Huey. All three parties appeal.
Huey appeal
Huey’s appeal presents questions for this Court regarding the amount and apportionment of attorney fees and costs awarded to her.
6 Clayton Terrace appeal
The LLC’s appeal presents several questions for this Court, including the validity of the
one-residence-per-lot provision in the subdivision’s amended indentures and whether this provision prohibits construction of a second residence onto a lot subdivided into two; whether the trustees’ claim against Huey involved any abuse of process; and whether Huey and the trustees can recover attorney fees from the LLC and, if so, the extent to which the attorney fee award should be apportioned.
Clayton Terrace trustees’ appeal
The trustees’ appeal presents several questions for this Court, including whether the trustees were authorized to bring their claim against Huey and, if so, whether they abused the legal process in doing so; whether the subdivision residents properly approved the right of first refusal provision; whether Huey and her agents complied with this provision; and whether the circuit court should have voided the sale of the property from the Huey trust to the LLC.
SC97349_Huey_first_brief
State ex rel. Carlos D. Alsup v. The Honorable James F. Kanatzar
Jackson County
Availability of official immunity in suit by student against teacher
Listen to the oral argument: SC97427 MP3 file
Alsup was represented during arguments by J. Andrew Marriott of EdCounsel LLC in Independence; the student was represented by Timothy H. Bosler Jr. of Bosler Law Firm PC in Liberty.
Carlos Alsup was employed as an in-school suspension teacher at Independence Academy, an alternative school operated by the Independence school district. Israel Mariano is a student at the academy. Mariano alleges Alsup physically restrained him in a negligent manner, injuring Mariano’s arm. Mariano sued Alsup. Alsup alleges restraining Mariano was necessary under district policy to prevent Mariano from harming himself, others or district property. He alleges he used no greater force than necessary under the circumstances. After the circuit court overruled his motions to dismiss, Alsup moved for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), alleging he had official immunity. The circuit court overruled his motion. Alsup seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than to vacate its order and grant him summary judgment.
This case presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether there is any dispute whether Alsup was acting as a public official at the time he restrained Mariano, whether his act was discretionary or ministerial, whether the manner of restraint was proper or legally mandated, and whether Alsup was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of official immunity. The other question involves the extent of official immunity protections and prohibition as a remedy.
SC97427_Alsup_brief
SC97427_Mariano_brief
SC97427_Alsup_reply_brief
SC97349
Trustees of Clayton Terrace Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace LLC and Jeannette R. Huey, Trustee of the Jane R. Huey Lifetime Trust Agreement Dated May 21, 1998
St. Louis County
Challenges to sale and subdivision of property, award of attorney fees
Listen to the oral argument: SC97349 MP3 file
6 Clayton Terrace was represented during arguments by Steven M. Cohen of Berger, Cohen & Brandt LC in Clayton; Huey was represented by John Hein of Hein Schneider & Bond PC in St. Louis; and the Clayton Terrace trustees were represented by Todd Hamby of Carmody MacDonald PC in St. Louis.
A woman’s lifetime trust owned a two-acre lot in the Clayton Terrace subdivision in Frontenac. After the woman’s death, Jeannette Huey, the woman’s daughter and trustee of the woman’s trust, listed the property for sale as she worked to dispose of the trust’s assets and finalize her mother’s estate. A company purchased the property. Questions later arose about whether, before closing, Huey’s real estate agent hand-delivered a notice of sale to each home in the subdivision, as well as about the extent to which the homeowners waived their right of first refusal. At or before closing, the buyer assigned the sale contract to another company, 6 Clayton Terrace LLC, and the sale closed as scheduled. The LLC subsequently renovated the lot’s home and pool, and Huey finalized her mother’s estate. The LLC later applied to the city to subdivide the lot into two lots. The city approved the LLC’s application and preliminary plat over the objections of the subdivision trustees. The trustees sued Huey, seeking to void the sale of the property to the LLC, and the LLC, seeking to enjoin it from building a second residence on the lot or selling any interest in any portion of the original lot. Huey filed a counterclaim against the trustees for abuse of process, alleging they attempted to coerce the LLC into withdrawing or abandoning its request to subdivide the property by purporting to put its title in jeopardy. The parties ultimately proceeded to a trial before a judge rather than a jury. As to the trustees’ claim against Huey and her counterclaim, the circuit court entered its judgment in favor of Huey. As to the trustees’ claim against the LLC, the circuit court entered judgment in the trustees’ favor, enjoining the LLC’s development plan for the property. The circuit court awarded certain attorney fees and costs to the trustees and Huey. All three parties appeal.
Huey appeal
Huey’s appeal presents questions for this Court regarding the amount and apportionment of attorney fees and costs awarded to her.
6 Clayton Terrace appeal
The LLC’s appeal presents several questions for this Court, including the validity of the
one-residence-per-lot provision in the subdivision’s amended indentures and whether this provision prohibits construction of a second residence onto a lot subdivided into two; whether the trustees’ claim against Huey involved any abuse of process; and whether Huey and the trustees can recover attorney fees from the LLC and, if so, the extent to which the attorney fee award should be apportioned.
Clayton Terrace trustees’ appeal
The trustees’ appeal presents several questions for this Court, including whether the trustees were authorized to bring their claim against Huey and, if so, whether they abused the legal process in doing so; whether the subdivision residents properly approved the right of first refusal provision; whether Huey and her agents complied with this provision; and whether the circuit court should have voided the sale of the property from the Huey trust to the LLC.
SC97349_Huey_first_brief
SC97465
Eve Sherrer v. Boston Scientific Corporation and C.R. Bard Inc.
Jackson County
Evidentiary challenges in product liability case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97465 MP3 file
Sherrer was represented during arguments by Michael W. Manners of Langdon & Emison in Lexington; Bard was represented by William Ray Price Jr. of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in St. Louis; and Boston Scientific was represented by Robert T. Adams of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Kansas City.
Eve Sherrer underwent a surgery to implant a mesh product, manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation, to address stress urinary incontinence. After the first product failed, Sherrer underwent a second surgery to remove a portion of the first product and to implant a second mesh product, manufactured by C. R. Bard Inc. She later underwent a third surgery to remove both products completely. Sherrer subsequently filed a medical negligence lawsuit against a hospital and a physician group, later amending her lawsuit to add Boston Scientific and Bard as defendants. Sherrer entered into a settlement with the hospital and physician group, both of which were dismissed from the suit. Sherrer proceeded to a jury trial for her product liability claims against the two manufacturers for their mesh products. At trial, the circuit court overruled Sherrer’s objections to the manufacturers’ use of her original allegations and settlement with the hospital and physician group. It also disallowed Sherrer from presenting evidence of Bard’s prior criminal convictions. The jury returned its verdict in favor of the manufacturers. Sherrer appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court, including whether the circuit should have admitted evidence of Bard’s criminal convictions during Sherrer’s cross-examination of Bard’s corporate representatives in her attempt to challenge Bard’s credibility and corporate character; should have allowed the manufacturers to present to the jury information from Sherrer’s original petition; and should have granted a mistrial after Bard displayed to the jury information about Sherrer’s settlement with the hospital and physician group.
SC97465_Sherrer_brief