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 a.m. Wednesday, May 29, 2019
SC97656
Justin D. O'Brien v. Department of Public Safety
Clinton County
Challenge to revocation of peace officer license
Listen to the oral argument: SC97656 MP3 file
O’Brien was represented during arguments by David Barrett, an attorney in Jefferson City; the department was represented by Ross Keeling of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Justin O’Brien was a licensed peace officer. After he saw information on his wife’s cellular telephone, he concluded she was having an affair and had a physical altercation with her. They later divorced. The state prosecuted O’Brien, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor peace disturbance. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence, and he successfully completed his probation. The director of the department of public safety sought to discipline O’Brien’s peace officer license, and the administrative hearing commission found cause to discipline his license for committing third-degree domestic assault. Following an evidentiary hearing, the director revoked his peace officer license. O’Brien sought review in the circuit court, which affirmed the director’s decision. O’Brien appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether an administrative agency’s determination of an individual’s criminal culpability violates the separation of powers provision of article II, section 1 of the state constitution. The other question involves whether the director’s decision revoking O’Brien’s peace officer license is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the whole record as a whole.
SC97656_O'Brien_brief
Justin D. O'Brien v. Department of Public Safety
Clinton County
Challenge to revocation of peace officer license
Listen to the oral argument: SC97656 MP3 file
O’Brien was represented during arguments by David Barrett, an attorney in Jefferson City; the department was represented by Ross Keeling of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Justin O’Brien was a licensed peace officer. After he saw information on his wife’s cellular telephone, he concluded she was having an affair and had a physical altercation with her. They later divorced. The state prosecuted O’Brien, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor peace disturbance. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence, and he successfully completed his probation. The director of the department of public safety sought to discipline O’Brien’s peace officer license, and the administrative hearing commission found cause to discipline his license for committing third-degree domestic assault. Following an evidentiary hearing, the director revoked his peace officer license. O’Brien sought review in the circuit court, which affirmed the director’s decision. O’Brien appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether an administrative agency’s determination of an individual’s criminal culpability violates the separation of powers provision of article II, section 1 of the state constitution. The other question involves whether the director’s decision revoking O’Brien’s peace officer license is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the whole record as a whole.
SC97656_O'Brien_brief
SC97656_O'Brien_reply_brief
SC97605
State of Missouri v. Charles C. Shaw III
Polk County
Challenge to conviction for felony resisting arrest
Listen to the oral argument: SC97605 MP3 file
Shaw was represented during arguments by Katharine Curry of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Jeff Bartholomew of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Following a brief conversation, Charles Shaw attacked a man holding his young son outside a Fair Play church. Shaw later struggled with the highway patrol trooper who responded to the scene. The state pursued first-degree assault and felony resisting arrest charges against Shaw. Although he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, Shaw did not pursue a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. During a trial before a judge, the trooper testified he arrested Shaw because he believed Shaw was attempting to assault him and said Shaw remained combative throughout the arrest. The circuit court found Shaw guilty of first-degree assault and resisting arrest and sentenced him to a total of 13 years in prison. Shaw appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the evidence was sufficient to establish Shaw was being arrested for a felony when he resisted arrest and, if not, whether the circuit court violated his constitutional rights to due process.
SC97605_Shaw_brief
SC97605
State of Missouri v. Charles C. Shaw III
Polk County
Challenge to conviction for felony resisting arrest
Listen to the oral argument: SC97605 MP3 file
Shaw was represented during arguments by Katharine Curry of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Jeff Bartholomew of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Following a brief conversation, Charles Shaw attacked a man holding his young son outside a Fair Play church. Shaw later struggled with the highway patrol trooper who responded to the scene. The state pursued first-degree assault and felony resisting arrest charges against Shaw. Although he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, Shaw did not pursue a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. During a trial before a judge, the trooper testified he arrested Shaw because he believed Shaw was attempting to assault him and said Shaw remained combative throughout the arrest. The circuit court found Shaw guilty of first-degree assault and resisting arrest and sentenced him to a total of 13 years in prison. Shaw appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the evidence was sufficient to establish Shaw was being arrested for a felony when he resisted arrest and, if not, whether the circuit court violated his constitutional rights to due process.
SC97605_Shaw_brief
SC97640
Abraham J. Eoff and Crystal M. Eoff, Individually and as Plaintiffs Ad Litem for Sophee R. Eoff v. Jennifer K. McDonald, D.O., and Seasons Healthcare for Women PC
St. Louis County
Abraham J. Eoff and Crystal M. Eoff, Individually and as Plaintiffs Ad Litem for Sophee R. Eoff v. Jennifer K. McDonald, D.O., and Seasons Healthcare for Women PC
St. Louis County
Challenge to circuit court’s denial of particular question during jury selection
Listen to the oral argument: SC97640 MP3 file
The Eoffs were represented during arguments by James Guirl of the Guirl Law Firm in St. Louis; the health care providers were represented by Randy Bauman of the Bauman Law Firm PC in Chesterfield.
Abraham and Crystal Eoff sued Dr. Jennifer McDonald and Seasons Healthcare for Women PC (collectively, the healthcare providers) for medical negligence and wrongful death, alleging an extensive subgaleal hemorrhage resulted from excessive force used in delivering their daughter. During the first day of jury selection, the circuit court informed the parties it court wished to conclude selection that day and seat the jury the next morning. The Eoffs’ attorney advised the circuit court he had forgotten to ask the potential jurors whether any of them were employed by or had a financial interest in the healthcare providers’ medical malpractice insurance carrier. The attorney requested he be allowed to ask the “insurance question” before the panel was dismissed. The healthcare providers’ attorney objected, arguing the question would place undue emphasis on the insurance issue at that point. The circuit court sustained the objection, and the case proceeded to trial the next day. The jury returned its verdict in the healthcare providers’ favor, and the circuit court entered judgment accordingly. The Eoffs appeal.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court committed reversible error in refusing to allow the Eoffs to ask the “insurance question” during jury selection.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court, argues the circuit court gave the Eoffs a reasonable opportunity to ask questions of the jury and allowing the “insurance question” after both sides concluded their questioning would have been unduly prejudicial.
Listen to the oral argument: SC97640 MP3 file
The Eoffs were represented during arguments by James Guirl of the Guirl Law Firm in St. Louis; the health care providers were represented by Randy Bauman of the Bauman Law Firm PC in Chesterfield.
Abraham and Crystal Eoff sued Dr. Jennifer McDonald and Seasons Healthcare for Women PC (collectively, the healthcare providers) for medical negligence and wrongful death, alleging an extensive subgaleal hemorrhage resulted from excessive force used in delivering their daughter. During the first day of jury selection, the circuit court informed the parties it court wished to conclude selection that day and seat the jury the next morning. The Eoffs’ attorney advised the circuit court he had forgotten to ask the potential jurors whether any of them were employed by or had a financial interest in the healthcare providers’ medical malpractice insurance carrier. The attorney requested he be allowed to ask the “insurance question” before the panel was dismissed. The healthcare providers’ attorney objected, arguing the question would place undue emphasis on the insurance issue at that point. The circuit court sustained the objection, and the case proceeded to trial the next day. The jury returned its verdict in the healthcare providers’ favor, and the circuit court entered judgment accordingly. The Eoffs appeal.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court committed reversible error in refusing to allow the Eoffs to ask the “insurance question” during jury selection.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court, argues the circuit court gave the Eoffs a reasonable opportunity to ask questions of the jury and allowing the “insurance question” after both sides concluded their questioning would have been unduly prejudicial.
SC97640_Eoffs_brief
SC97694
In re: Nancy J. Fisher
Greene County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97694 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by regional special representative Kevin Rapp, an attorney in Springfield; Fisher was represented by William Fleishaker of Fleischaker & Williams in Joplin.
A woman hired Springfield attorney Nancy Fisher to represent her in a personal injury case. Fisher settled the case for $725,000. Fisher gave the woman a settlement memorandum showing payment of nearly $103,000 to various medical providers, while she took a fee and expenses totaling approximately $109,000, leaving approximately $513,000 for her client. The woman subsequently began receiving collection calls and letters from Cox South Medical Center, alleging the woman still owed $84,000. Fisher told the woman the medical center had agreed to accept a reduced amount of approximately $71,500 as full settlement of the amount it was owed. The medical center disputed it had made any such agreement. Fisher told her client she would take care of the matter but did not. She then failed to respond to repeated requests for information from the medical center, the woman and the woman’s new attorney. The woman filed a complaint against Fisher, and the chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings. Following an evidentiary hearing, the disciplinary hearing panel found Fisher violated various rules of professional conduct and recommended her law license be suspended with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Fisher’s license as the panel recommended; Fisher argues any suspension should be stayed and she should be placed on probation.
This proceeding presents two questions for this Court – whether Fisher violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC97694_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC97694_Fisher_brief
SC97683
In re: Jerome J. Dobson
St. Louis city
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97683 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel Sam Phillips of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; Dobson was represented by Maurice Graham of Gray, Ritter & Graham PC in St. Louis.
A Washington University doctor hired St. Louis employment attorney Jerome Dobson to represent him in a disciplinary action regarding conditions of the doctor’s continued employment. Dobson sent letters regarding the action to the university’s counsel. About nine months later, the university placed the doctor on administrative leave. Dobson sent a demand letter directly to the doctor’s supervisors rather than to the university’s counsel. The university’s counsel filed an ethics complaint against Dobson. The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings, alleging Dobson engaged in improper ex parte communication with university administration despite knowing the university was represented by counsel. The allegations included Dobson’s communication with the doctor’s supervisors as well as prior incidents in which he sent letters to university supervisors rather than counsel. Dobson alleged he contacted the supervisors because he believed the university’s counsel had been nonresponsive, he was not asking for information and he believed it was the best action for his client under exigent circumstances. During an evidentiary hearing before a disciplinary hearing panel, and over the chief disciplinary counsel’s objection, Dobson presented deposition testimony from a retired judge offering his opinion about the scope of the rule prohibiting ex parte communications, what a reasonable attorney would believe his or her obligations to be under the rule, and whether Dobson committed an ethical violation under the circumstances. The panel found the chief disciplinary counsel failed to prove Dobson violated the rule prohibiting ex parte communications or otherwise committed professional misconduct. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s decision and asks this Court to reprimand Dobson’s law license.
This proceeding presents two questions for this Court – whether Dobson violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate. Related issues include the extent to which the supervisors are in the group of individuals Dobson could not contact without going through the university’s counsel and whether the panel properly admitted and relied on expert testimony about questions of law.
SC97683_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC97683_Dobson_brief
In re: Jerome J. Dobson
St. Louis city
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97683 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel Sam Phillips of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; Dobson was represented by Maurice Graham of Gray, Ritter & Graham PC in St. Louis.
A Washington University doctor hired St. Louis employment attorney Jerome Dobson to represent him in a disciplinary action regarding conditions of the doctor’s continued employment. Dobson sent letters regarding the action to the university’s counsel. About nine months later, the university placed the doctor on administrative leave. Dobson sent a demand letter directly to the doctor’s supervisors rather than to the university’s counsel. The university’s counsel filed an ethics complaint against Dobson. The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings, alleging Dobson engaged in improper ex parte communication with university administration despite knowing the university was represented by counsel. The allegations included Dobson’s communication with the doctor’s supervisors as well as prior incidents in which he sent letters to university supervisors rather than counsel. Dobson alleged he contacted the supervisors because he believed the university’s counsel had been nonresponsive, he was not asking for information and he believed it was the best action for his client under exigent circumstances. During an evidentiary hearing before a disciplinary hearing panel, and over the chief disciplinary counsel’s objection, Dobson presented deposition testimony from a retired judge offering his opinion about the scope of the rule prohibiting ex parte communications, what a reasonable attorney would believe his or her obligations to be under the rule, and whether Dobson committed an ethical violation under the circumstances. The panel found the chief disciplinary counsel failed to prove Dobson violated the rule prohibiting ex parte communications or otherwise committed professional misconduct. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s decision and asks this Court to reprimand Dobson’s law license.
This proceeding presents two questions for this Court – whether Dobson violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate. Related issues include the extent to which the supervisors are in the group of individuals Dobson could not contact without going through the university’s counsel and whether the panel properly admitted and relied on expert testimony about questions of law.
SC97683_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC97683_Dobson_brief