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. Wednesday, March 13, 2019
SC97418
State ex rel. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. The Honorable Joseph L. Green
St. Louis County
Challenge to venue in lawsuit over use of bequeathed funds
Listen to the oral argument: SC97418 MP3 file
The curators were represented during arguments by James R. Layton of Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan Jackstadt PC in St. Louis; Hillsdale College was represented by Peter W. Herzog III of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP in St. Louis.
In his will, Sherlock Hibbs made a $5 million bequest to the University of Missouri’s curators “as trustees, in trust,” directing the curators to divide the gift into six separate funds as named by Hibbs, and recommended how the funds should be invested. The will stated the separate named funds were established to benefit the University of Missouri-Columbia College of Business and Public Administration and directed the curators to create endowed chairs and distinguished professorships and ensure each faculty appointee is “a dedicated and articulate disciple of the free and open market economy (the Ludwig von Mises Austrian School of Economics).” Hibbs’ will directed the curators to provide to Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, the appointee’s name and qualifications and certify the appointee was such a disciple. If the position remained vacant for five consecutive years, the will directed the curators to distribute the balance of the fund to Hillsdale College. Hillsdale subsequently sued the curators in St. Louis County, alleging they failed to comply with terms of the bequest, including those regarding the faculty appointments and management of the funds. Hillsdale alleged the curators rewrote the bequest to permit appointment of faculty who focus “on some Austrian tenets that are compatible with what we do in our business school.” The parties dispute whether the Hibbs bequest resulted in a trust. The curators moved to change venue to Boone County, their regular place of business, under a specific venue statute governing trust administration. The circuit court overruled the motion. Hillsdale subsequently amended its petition twice, and the circuit court overruled the curators’ motions to change venue for each. The university curators now seek this Court’s writ directing the circuit court to transfer venue to Boone County.
This case presents several questions for this Court, including whether the case involves trust administration and whether venue is proper in Boone County under a specific venue statute applicable to trust administrations, under the general venue statute, or because it is the most convenient forum for the case.
SC97418_University_of_Missouri_Curators_brief
State ex rel. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. The Honorable Joseph L. Green
St. Louis County
Challenge to venue in lawsuit over use of bequeathed funds
Listen to the oral argument: SC97418 MP3 file
The curators were represented during arguments by James R. Layton of Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan Jackstadt PC in St. Louis; Hillsdale College was represented by Peter W. Herzog III of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP in St. Louis.
In his will, Sherlock Hibbs made a $5 million bequest to the University of Missouri’s curators “as trustees, in trust,” directing the curators to divide the gift into six separate funds as named by Hibbs, and recommended how the funds should be invested. The will stated the separate named funds were established to benefit the University of Missouri-Columbia College of Business and Public Administration and directed the curators to create endowed chairs and distinguished professorships and ensure each faculty appointee is “a dedicated and articulate disciple of the free and open market economy (the Ludwig von Mises Austrian School of Economics).” Hibbs’ will directed the curators to provide to Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, the appointee’s name and qualifications and certify the appointee was such a disciple. If the position remained vacant for five consecutive years, the will directed the curators to distribute the balance of the fund to Hillsdale College. Hillsdale subsequently sued the curators in St. Louis County, alleging they failed to comply with terms of the bequest, including those regarding the faculty appointments and management of the funds. Hillsdale alleged the curators rewrote the bequest to permit appointment of faculty who focus “on some Austrian tenets that are compatible with what we do in our business school.” The parties dispute whether the Hibbs bequest resulted in a trust. The curators moved to change venue to Boone County, their regular place of business, under a specific venue statute governing trust administration. The circuit court overruled the motion. Hillsdale subsequently amended its petition twice, and the circuit court overruled the curators’ motions to change venue for each. The university curators now seek this Court’s writ directing the circuit court to transfer venue to Boone County.
This case presents several questions for this Court, including whether the case involves trust administration and whether venue is proper in Boone County under a specific venue statute applicable to trust administrations, under the general venue statute, or because it is the most convenient forum for the case.
SC97418_University_of_Missouri_Curators_brief
SC97429
State ex rel. Ronald Prater, Gwendalyn Gonzales, Deann Thompson and Lucille Curtman v. The Honorable Jason R. Brown
Greene County
Challenge to venue in an insurance lawsuit arising out of wrongful death claim
Listen to the oral argument: SC97429 MP3 file
The wrongful death claimants were represented during arguments by Dirk Vandever of The Popham Law Firm in Kansas City; USAA General Indemnity was represented by Michael L. Belancio of Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford PC in Kansas City.
Ronald Prater was injured and his wife killed in an automobile collision in Pulaski County. Prater and others filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dakota Ball, the other driver involved in the collision. Prater also filed a separate lawsuit in Pulaski County against Ball for his own injuries. United Services Automobile Association insured the vehicle Ball was driving as well as another vehicle owned by Ball’s stepmother. USAA filed a declaratory judgment action in Greene County against Prater, Ball and the stepmother, alleging there was no coverage under the stepmother’s automobile policy for the collision involving Ball and refusing to defend Ball against the Prater lawsuits. None of the defendants reside in Greene County or were found or served in Greene County. Prater filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for improper venue, seeking to transfer USAA’s suit to Pulaski County. The circuit court overruled the motion beyond the 90-day timeframe in the venue statute. Prater sought rehearing or reconsideration. The circuit court denied relief. The circuit court also ordered the other wrongful death claimants to be added as defendants in the USAA suit. None of these defendants reside in or were found or served in Greene County. The wrongful death claimants also moved to transfer venue to Pulaski County. The circuit court overruled their motion. Prater and the other wrongful death claimants now seek this Court’s writ mandating the circuit court to transfer venue to Pulaski County.
This case presents several questions for this Court, including whether venue is appropriate in Greene or Pulaski County, whether Prater and Ball conceded Greene County was a proper venue, whether Ball should be deemed a Greene County resident, and whether the venue motion was deemed granted when the circuit court did not rule on it within 90 days.
Listen to the oral argument: SC97429 MP3 file
The wrongful death claimants were represented during arguments by Dirk Vandever of The Popham Law Firm in Kansas City; USAA General Indemnity was represented by Michael L. Belancio of Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford PC in Kansas City.
Ronald Prater was injured and his wife killed in an automobile collision in Pulaski County. Prater and others filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dakota Ball, the other driver involved in the collision. Prater also filed a separate lawsuit in Pulaski County against Ball for his own injuries. United Services Automobile Association insured the vehicle Ball was driving as well as another vehicle owned by Ball’s stepmother. USAA filed a declaratory judgment action in Greene County against Prater, Ball and the stepmother, alleging there was no coverage under the stepmother’s automobile policy for the collision involving Ball and refusing to defend Ball against the Prater lawsuits. None of the defendants reside in Greene County or were found or served in Greene County. Prater filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for improper venue, seeking to transfer USAA’s suit to Pulaski County. The circuit court overruled the motion beyond the 90-day timeframe in the venue statute. Prater sought rehearing or reconsideration. The circuit court denied relief. The circuit court also ordered the other wrongful death claimants to be added as defendants in the USAA suit. None of these defendants reside in or were found or served in Greene County. The wrongful death claimants also moved to transfer venue to Pulaski County. The circuit court overruled their motion. Prater and the other wrongful death claimants now seek this Court’s writ mandating the circuit court to transfer venue to Pulaski County.
This case presents several questions for this Court, including whether venue is appropriate in Greene or Pulaski County, whether Prater and Ball conceded Greene County was a proper venue, whether Ball should be deemed a Greene County resident, and whether the venue motion was deemed granted when the circuit court did not rule on it within 90 days.
SC97469
Anthony Caruthers v. The Honorable Wendy Wexler-Horn, Judge of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Francois, 24th Judicial Circuit
St. Francois County
Challenge to order for mental examination in criminal case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97469 MP3 file
Caruthers was represented during arguments by Ramona A. Gau of Marler Schrum Law in Farmington; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Caruthers was represented during arguments by Ramona A. Gau of Marler Schrum Law in Farmington; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Anthony Caruthers in St. Francois County with multiple crimes. During discovery, Caruthers disclosed anticipated expert testimony relating to whether he had a diminished capacity at the time of the offense. The state filed a motion seeking a competency evaluation of Caruthers under section 552.020, RSMo. It then withdrew that motion, instead filing a motion seeking a mental examination of Caruthers under section 552.015, RSMo, to determine whether he had diminished capacity. Caruthers objected to a mental examination, arguing he has not asserted he is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The circuit court granted the state’s motion. Caruthers seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from ordering him to submit to a mental evaluation.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether section 552.015 or 552.020 permits the circuit court to order a defendant to undergo a mental evaluation to assess whether he had diminished capacity at the time of the offense.
SC97469_Caruthers_brief
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether section 552.015 or 552.020 permits the circuit court to order a defendant to undergo a mental evaluation to assess whether he had diminished capacity at the time of the offense.
SC97469_Caruthers_brief
SC97469_State_brief
SC97361
Neil Desai, M.D., et al. v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company
Jackson County
Challenge by insurance company seeking to intervene in and obtain relief from a judgment in an underlying personal injury lawsuit
Listen to the oral argument: SC97361 MP3 file
Seneca Specialty Insurance was represented during arguments by Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Dowd Bennett LLP in St. Louis; the Desais were represented by Jeffrey M. Bauer of Strong-Garner-Bauer PC in Springfield.
Dr. Neil Desai and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against Garcia Empire LLC, alleging a Garcia Empire employee injured Desai in 2014 when the employee grabbed and twisted Desai’s arm, ejecting him from a nightclub Garcia Empire operated. At the time of the incident, Garcia Empire was insured by Seneca Specialty Insurance Company. Seneca denied coverage, and separate litigation was filed to determine the extent of Seneca’s duty to defend Garcia Empire against the lawsuit. The Desais and Garcia Empire entered into a section 537.065 agreement to limit any recovery to the amount of Garcia Empire’s insurance policy. Meanwhile, the legislature amended section 537.065 to require parties in a tort action who are contemplating entering into a section 537.065 agreement to give the insurance company notice of the agreement and 30 days to intervene, as a matter of right, in any pending lawsuit involving the claim for damage. The amendment took effect in August 2017. The Desais and Garcia Empire entered into a section 537.065 agreement, though the parties dispute whether the agreement came before or after the statute’s amendment took effect. In October 2017, the circuit court entered its judgment awarding the Desais more than $6.9 million in damages. Seneca subsequently filed motions to intervene and for relief from the judgment. The parties dispute whether the judgment was predicated on a section 537.065 agreement or followed a trial, as well as whether Seneca had the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage of the litigation. Seneca alleged it was not given notice of any section 537.065 agreement and had not been given an opportunity to intervene under the amended statute. The circuit court overruled Seneca’s motions. Seneca appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court, including whether the relevant date under the amended statute is the date the judgment is entered, the date the lawsuit is commenced, or the date a section 537.065 agreement is executed; whether the amendments are procedural or substantive and can be applied retroactively to an agreement executed before the amended statute took effect; and whether Seneca should have been given notice and the opportunity to intervene.
Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers argues the purpose of the legislature’s amendment was to make sure insurance companies have the right to written notice of any section 537.065 agreement and the opportunity to intervene in the tort litigation; the amendments are procedural, not substantive, and can apply retroactively; and the key date in determining whether the amendments apply is when the judgment was entered. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys argues the amended statute is substantive in nature, cannot be applied retroactively, and does not apply to agreements that predate its effective date.
SC97361_Seneca_brief
SC97361
Neil Desai, M.D., et al. v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company
Jackson County
Challenge by insurance company seeking to intervene in and obtain relief from a judgment in an underlying personal injury lawsuit
Listen to the oral argument: SC97361 MP3 file
Seneca Specialty Insurance was represented during arguments by Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Dowd Bennett LLP in St. Louis; the Desais were represented by Jeffrey M. Bauer of Strong-Garner-Bauer PC in Springfield.
Dr. Neil Desai and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against Garcia Empire LLC, alleging a Garcia Empire employee injured Desai in 2014 when the employee grabbed and twisted Desai’s arm, ejecting him from a nightclub Garcia Empire operated. At the time of the incident, Garcia Empire was insured by Seneca Specialty Insurance Company. Seneca denied coverage, and separate litigation was filed to determine the extent of Seneca’s duty to defend Garcia Empire against the lawsuit. The Desais and Garcia Empire entered into a section 537.065 agreement to limit any recovery to the amount of Garcia Empire’s insurance policy. Meanwhile, the legislature amended section 537.065 to require parties in a tort action who are contemplating entering into a section 537.065 agreement to give the insurance company notice of the agreement and 30 days to intervene, as a matter of right, in any pending lawsuit involving the claim for damage. The amendment took effect in August 2017. The Desais and Garcia Empire entered into a section 537.065 agreement, though the parties dispute whether the agreement came before or after the statute’s amendment took effect. In October 2017, the circuit court entered its judgment awarding the Desais more than $6.9 million in damages. Seneca subsequently filed motions to intervene and for relief from the judgment. The parties dispute whether the judgment was predicated on a section 537.065 agreement or followed a trial, as well as whether Seneca had the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage of the litigation. Seneca alleged it was not given notice of any section 537.065 agreement and had not been given an opportunity to intervene under the amended statute. The circuit court overruled Seneca’s motions. Seneca appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court, including whether the relevant date under the amended statute is the date the judgment is entered, the date the lawsuit is commenced, or the date a section 537.065 agreement is executed; whether the amendments are procedural or substantive and can be applied retroactively to an agreement executed before the amended statute took effect; and whether Seneca should have been given notice and the opportunity to intervene.
Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers argues the purpose of the legislature’s amendment was to make sure insurance companies have the right to written notice of any section 537.065 agreement and the opportunity to intervene in the tort litigation; the amendments are procedural, not substantive, and can apply retroactively; and the key date in determining whether the amendments apply is when the judgment was entered. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys argues the amended statute is substantive in nature, cannot be applied retroactively, and does not apply to agreements that predate its effective date.
SC97361_Seneca_brief