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
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Due to concerns regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), oral arguments scheduled for May 2020 will be conducted remotely, unless the parties request their cases be submitted on briefs.
Scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. – SC98169
Mary J. Moore v. Bi-State Development Agency d/b/a Metro
St. Louis
Challenge to reduction in jury award in personal injury case
Listen to the oral argument: SC98169 MP3 file
Moore was represented during arguments by Michael Gross of Michael Gross Law Office in St. Louis; Bi-State was represented by Donald L. O’Keefe of Gausnell, O’Keefe & Thomas LLC in St. Louis.
In April 2013, Mary Moore was driving a school bus that was hit by a bus operated by a Bi-State Development Agency driver in St. Louis. Moore did not report any injuries to the officer who responded to the collision. Within hours, however, she began experiencing lower back pain and sought medical treatment that day. Over the next five years, she continued to experience pain and was treated by a number of specialists. In September 2016, Moore sued Bi-State and its driver, alleging their negligent operation of the Bi-State bus caused her injuries. Moore later dismissed her claim against the Bi-State driver, who had filed for bankruptcy. Following a trial, the jury returned its verdict in Moore’s favor, awarding her $1.878 million in damages, and the circuit court entered its judgment accordingly. Bi-State filed post-trial motions, including seeking remittitur (court reduction in the jury’s damages award) under section 537.610, RSMo, which it argued capped its liability for damages. Moore opposed the motion, arguing section 70.429, RSMo, and a related regulation required Bi-State to comply with certain federal regulations and to satisfy all personal injury judgments of $5 million or less. The circuit court granted remittitur and reduced the award to the $420,606 cap in section 537.610. Moore appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court should have granted remittitur and reduced the judgment pursuant to section 537.610. Related issues include whether this action was contrary to section 70.429; whether section 70.429 demonstrates the legislature’s intention to create an exception to Bi-State’s sovereign immunity protection; whether federal department of transportation safety regulations adopted pursuant to section 70.429 require Bi-State to satisfy all judgments of $5 million or less for personal injuries caused by negligent operation of its buses with a seating capacity of 16 people or more; whether further proceedings are necessary to determine the capacity of the Bi-State vehicle here; whether sections 70.429 and 537.610 are in conflict; and, if so, whether section 70.429 controls over section 537.610 as the later-enacted and more specific statute.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers filed a brief as a friend of the Court. It argues, for the legislature to waive a political subdivision’s sovereign immunity, the waiver must be explicit or express, not implied or inferred, and there is no such explicit or express waiver here.
SC98169_Moore_briefListen to the oral argument: SC98169 MP3 file
Moore was represented during arguments by Michael Gross of Michael Gross Law Office in St. Louis; Bi-State was represented by Donald L. O’Keefe of Gausnell, O’Keefe & Thomas LLC in St. Louis.
In April 2013, Mary Moore was driving a school bus that was hit by a bus operated by a Bi-State Development Agency driver in St. Louis. Moore did not report any injuries to the officer who responded to the collision. Within hours, however, she began experiencing lower back pain and sought medical treatment that day. Over the next five years, she continued to experience pain and was treated by a number of specialists. In September 2016, Moore sued Bi-State and its driver, alleging their negligent operation of the Bi-State bus caused her injuries. Moore later dismissed her claim against the Bi-State driver, who had filed for bankruptcy. Following a trial, the jury returned its verdict in Moore’s favor, awarding her $1.878 million in damages, and the circuit court entered its judgment accordingly. Bi-State filed post-trial motions, including seeking remittitur (court reduction in the jury’s damages award) under section 537.610, RSMo, which it argued capped its liability for damages. Moore opposed the motion, arguing section 70.429, RSMo, and a related regulation required Bi-State to comply with certain federal regulations and to satisfy all personal injury judgments of $5 million or less. The circuit court granted remittitur and reduced the award to the $420,606 cap in section 537.610. Moore appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court should have granted remittitur and reduced the judgment pursuant to section 537.610. Related issues include whether this action was contrary to section 70.429; whether section 70.429 demonstrates the legislature’s intention to create an exception to Bi-State’s sovereign immunity protection; whether federal department of transportation safety regulations adopted pursuant to section 70.429 require Bi-State to satisfy all judgments of $5 million or less for personal injuries caused by negligent operation of its buses with a seating capacity of 16 people or more; whether further proceedings are necessary to determine the capacity of the Bi-State vehicle here; whether sections 70.429 and 537.610 are in conflict; and, if so, whether section 70.429 controls over section 537.610 as the later-enacted and more specific statute.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers filed a brief as a friend of the Court. It argues, for the legislature to waive a political subdivision’s sovereign immunity, the waiver must be explicit or express, not implied or inferred, and there is no such explicit or express waiver here.
SC98169_MODL_amicus_brief
Scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. – SC98298
State of Missouri v. Rodney Knox
St. Louis
Challenges to stealing convictions
Listen to the oral argument: SC98298 MP3 file
Knox was represented during arguments by Nina McDonnell of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Richard A. Starnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Rodney Knox with three counts each of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. At trial, the complaining witness testified Knox, carrying a gun and a bag, was one of four men who forced their way into his apartment and robbed him. Knox testified he carried a gun for his own protection and carried his savings in cash but never was in the apartment and did not participate in the robbery. He testified the other men carried property out of the apartment and, when he was asked to pick up items falling out of a bag the others were carrying, he did, including a belt, headphones and a speaker. As the men exited the elevator, there was a police officer in the lobby. The other three men ran; Knox was detained and arrested. The jury acquitted Knox of armed criminal action but found him guilty of one charge of felony stealing and two charges of misdemeanor stealing (lesser-included offenses of robbery). The circuit court sentenced him to five years in prison for felony stealing, suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for five years. It also sentenced him to concurrent terms of six months in the city jail for misdemeanor stealing, to run concurrently with the prison term and with credit for time already served. Knox appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One is whether the circuit court incorrectly entered judgment for the felony stealing count as a class C rather than a class D felony and, if so, how the error should be corrected. Another is whether there was sufficient evidence Knox retained $750 or more in money and property from the complaining witness so as to support his felony stealing conviction. An additional question involves whether the evidence was sufficient to support Knox’s convictions for class A misdemeanor stealing and, if not, whether the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum punishment authorized by law.
Listen to the oral argument: SC98298 MP3 file
Knox was represented during arguments by Nina McDonnell of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Richard A. Starnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Rodney Knox with three counts each of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. At trial, the complaining witness testified Knox, carrying a gun and a bag, was one of four men who forced their way into his apartment and robbed him. Knox testified he carried a gun for his own protection and carried his savings in cash but never was in the apartment and did not participate in the robbery. He testified the other men carried property out of the apartment and, when he was asked to pick up items falling out of a bag the others were carrying, he did, including a belt, headphones and a speaker. As the men exited the elevator, there was a police officer in the lobby. The other three men ran; Knox was detained and arrested. The jury acquitted Knox of armed criminal action but found him guilty of one charge of felony stealing and two charges of misdemeanor stealing (lesser-included offenses of robbery). The circuit court sentenced him to five years in prison for felony stealing, suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for five years. It also sentenced him to concurrent terms of six months in the city jail for misdemeanor stealing, to run concurrently with the prison term and with credit for time already served. Knox appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One is whether the circuit court incorrectly entered judgment for the felony stealing count as a class C rather than a class D felony and, if so, how the error should be corrected. Another is whether there was sufficient evidence Knox retained $750 or more in money and property from the complaining witness so as to support his felony stealing conviction. An additional question involves whether the evidence was sufficient to support Knox’s convictions for class A misdemeanor stealing and, if not, whether the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum punishment authorized by law.
SC97784 (Note: By order dated May 22, 2020, this case is being moved to June 23.)
In re: Allan H. Bell
Clay County