Supreme Court Rule Changes
In an order dated February 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Missouri repealed subdivision (f) of subdivision 15.06 (Reporting Requirements - Sanctions - Review) of Rule 15, entitled "Continuing Legal Education," and adopted a new subdivision (f) of subdivision 15.06 (Reporting Requirements - Sanctions - Review).
This order becomes effective July 1, 2005.
The complete text of the order can be found in West's Missouri Cases, 153 S.W.3d No. 2 March 1, 2005, pp. Ct.R.-3 - Ct.R.-4.
The Supreme Court of Missouri, in an order dated March 1, 2005, repealed Civil Procedure Form No. 14, entitled "Presumed Child Support Amount Calculation Worksheet," as well as the directions for completion, comments for use, and assumptions, and in lieu thereof adopted a new Civil Procedure Form No. 14, entitled "Presumed Child Support Amount Calculation Worksheet," as well as directions for completion, comments for use, and assumptions. The Court, in an order dated March 15, 2005, corrected the Child Care Tax Credit Worksheet contained in the March 1, 2005 order.
This order becomes effective July 1, 2005.
The complete text of the order has not yet been printed in West's Missouri Cases, but may be read in its entirety at www.courts.mo.gov.
In an order dated March 7, 2005, the Supreme Court of Missouri repealed subdivision (a) of subdivision 8.01 (The Board of Law Examiners), subdivisions (a), (d), and (e) of subdivision 8.06 (Temporary Practice by Lawyers Applying for Admission to The Missouri Bar), subdivisions (b) and (c) of subdivision 8.07 (Application for Bar Examination), subdivision (b) of subdivision 8.08 (The Bar Examination), and Regulation 7 to subdivision 8.08, subdivision (a) to subdivision 8.10 (Admission Without Examination), and Regulations 1 and 3 to subdivision 8.10, subdivision (a)(2) of subdivision 8.105 (Limited Admission for In-House Counsel) and the Regulation to subdivision (d) of subdivision 8.11 (Approval of Applications), and subdivisions (a) and (d) of subdivision 8.12 (Hearings Before Board and Review by Court) of Rule 8, entitled "Admission to the Bar," and in lieu thereof adopted a new subdivision (a) of subdivision 8.01 (The Board of Law Examiners), new subdivisions (a), (d), and (e) of subdivision 8.06 (Temporary Practice by Lawyers Applying for Admission to The Missouri Bar), new subdivisions (b) and (c) of subdivision 8.07 (Application for Bar Examination), new subdivision (b) of subdivision 8.08 (The Bar Examination), a new Regulation 7 to subdivision 8.08, a new subdivision (a) to subdivision 8.10 (Admission Without Examination), new Regulations 1 and 3 to subdivision 8.10, new subdivision (a)(2) of subdivision 8.105 (Limited Admission for In-House Counsel), new subdivision (d) of subdivision 8.11 (Approval of Applications), and new subdivisions (a) and (d) of subdivision 8.12 (Hearings Before Board and Review by Court).
The Supreme Court of Missouri, in the same order, repealed subdivision (a)(1) of subdivision 13.03, entitled "Certification," of Rule 13 (Legal Assistance by Law Students), and adopted a new subdivision (a)(1) of subdivision 13.03, entitled "Certification."
In the same order, the Court repealed subdivision (d) of subdivision 15.05, entitled "Continuing Legal Education Requirements," of Rule 15 (Continuing Legal Education), and in lieu thereof adopted a new subdivision (d) of subdivision 15.05, entitled "Continuing Legal Education Requirements."
The Court, in the same order, approved a fee schedule.
This order becomes effective July 1, 2005.
The complete text of the order has not yet been printed in West's Missouri Cases, but may be read in its entirety at www.courts.mo.gov.
The Supreme Court of Missouri, in an order dated March 9, 2005, repealed subdivision 117.02, entitled "Admission to Hearings," and the comment thereto, of Rule 117 (Rules Applicable to All Hearings) and adopted a new subdivision 117.02, entitled "Open Hearings" and a comment thereto.
In the same order, the Court adopted a new subdivision 119.10, entitled "Continuances," and a new subdivision 119.11, entitled "Untimely Hearings," of Rule 119 (Hearing on Petition).
Also in the order, the Court repealed subdivision 122.02, entitled "Juvenile Court Records to be Confidential," of Rule 122 (Rights of Juveniles) and adopted a new subdivision 122.02, entitled "Open Records."
This order becomes effective January 1, 2006.
The complete text of the order has not yet been printed in West's Missouri Cases, but may be read in its entirety at www.courts.mo.gov.
In an order dated March 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Missouri repealed subdivision 4-5.5, entitled "Unauthorized Practice of Law," and the comment thereto and subdivision 4-8.5 entitled "Jurisdiction," and the comment thereto of Rule 4 (Rules of Professional Conduct) and adopted a new subdivision 4-5.5, entitled "Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law," and a comment thereto and a new subdivision 4-8.5, entitled "Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law."
This order becomes effective January 1, 2006.
The complete text of the order has not yet been printed in West's Missouri Cases, but may be read in its entirety at www.courts.mo.gov.
Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc
March 7, 2005
Effective July 1, 2005
IN RE: REVISIONS TO MAI-CIVIL
TABLE OF INSTRUCTIONS
MAI 2.03 EXPLANATORY - ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS
(Instruction - Revision)
(Committee Comment - New)
MAI 31.24 VERDICT DIRECTING - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION - MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(Instruction - New)
(Notes on Use - New)
(Committee Comment - New)
MAI 31.25 VERDICT DIRECTING - LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION - MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(Instruction - New)
(Notes on Use - New)
(Committee Comment - New)
Order
1. Additions and revisions of previously approved MAI-CIVIL Instructions, Notes on Use and Committee Comments as listed above, having been prepared by the Committee on Jury Instructions - Civil and reviewed by the Court, are hereby adopted and approved.
2. The Instructions, Notes on Use and Committee Comments revised as set forth in the specific exhibits attached hereto must be used on and after July 1, 2005, and may be used prior thereto; any such use shall not be presumed to be error.
3. It is further ordered that this order and the specific exhibits attached hereto shall be published in the South Western Reporter and the Journal of The Missouri Bar.
Day - to - Day
_____________________________
RONNIE L. WHITE
Chief Justice
2.03 [2005 Revision] Explanatory - Order of Instructions
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case. The court will not repeat that instruction at this time. However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you. You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence. Words or phrases which are not otherwise defined for you as part of these instructions should be accorded their ordinary meaning. The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance. All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room.
Committee Comment (2005 New)
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
For cases addressing the issue of what words and phrases should be defined in instructions, see: Steffens v. Paramount Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Mo. App. 1984), and Huff v. Union Electric Ca, 598 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Mo. App. 1980).
31.24 [2005 New] Verdict Directing - Employment Discrimination - Missouri Human Rights Act
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1 , 2005)
Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe:
First, defendant (here insert the alleged discriminatory act, such as "failed to hire", "discharged" or other act within the scope of Section 213.055, RSMo) plaintiff, and
Second, (here insert one or more of the protected classifications supported by the evidence such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability) was a contributing factor in such (here, repeat alleged discriminatory act, such as "failure to hire", discharge", etc.), and
Third, as a direct result of such conduct, plaintiff sustained damage.
*[unless you believe plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason of Instruction Number (here insert number of affirmative defense instruction)].
Notes On Use (2005 New)
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
* Add if affirmative defense is submitted.
This bracketed phrase should not be used to submit lawful justification under MAI 31.25.
Committee Comment (2005 New)
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
Section 213.055, RSMo. Unlawful Employment Practices, provides in part:
1. It shall be an unlawful employment practice:
(1) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual:
(a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability;
In State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley. 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. banc 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that there is a right to a jury trial in actions for damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Section 213.055, RSMo, et seq.
31.25 [2005 New] Verdict Directing - Lawful Justification - Employment Discrimination - Missouri Human Rights Act
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
Your verdict must be for defendant if you believe:
First, defendant (here insert alleged discriminatory act submitted in plaintiff's verdict directing instruction such as "failed to hire", "discharged" or other act within the scope of Section 213.055, RSMo) plaintiff because (here set forth the alleged lawful reason such action was taken), and
Second, in so doing (here insert the protected classification submitted by plaintiff, such as race, color, religion, national origin, etc.) was not a contributing factor.
Notes on Use (2005 New)
(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005)
See MAI 31.24.
This verdict directing instruction must be used to submit lawful justification.