Exoneration Rule Discussed
In legal malpractice action, plaintiff convicted of crime on guilty plea or after trial cannot show defendant's liability unless plaintiff shows later exoneration from guilt. On undisputed evidence that plaintiff pleaded and was found guilty, collateral estoppel barred plaintiff from showing that defendant proximately caused damage. Later denial of guilt does not change that result. Acquittal at trial would not have eliminated the possibility of damages claimed or have resulted from licensing action because licensing agency may determine whether to act without regard to act without regard to outcome in criminal action.
Mark R. Rosenberg, Appellant, vs. Burton H. Shostak and Moline & Mehan, LLC, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED98219
Satisfaction of Judgment Discussed
Circuit court loses jurisdiction over merits of action 30 days (90 if after-trial motions are filed) after issuance of judgment subject only to appellate court mandate. Order showing satisfaction of judgment is a special after-judgment order, but it cannot change merits of judgment once circuit court jurisdiction over the merits has lapsed, so order showing satisfaction cannot issue on any terms other than underlying judgment. Order showing satisfaction of judgment is subject to appeal.
James Price Schumacher, et al vs. Louis Edward Schumacher Austin
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD74901
Evidence Needed for Liquidated Damage Clause
To claim damages under contract's liquidated damages clause, claimant need not show how much damage occurred, but still show that some damage occurred. Relief on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a judgment as sought in motion for directed verdict. Directed verdict can never happen for party with the burden of proof, because fact-finder may disbelieve that party's evidence and other party may rely on that chance, unless other party admits all elements of claim and unchallenged documentary evidence supports it. Remanded to determine attorney fees.
TIMBERLAND FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DENNIS C. FRANKS and TIMBERLAND MACHINERY, INC., Defendants-Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD31898
No Clear Invocation of Right to Silence
Support for finding of intentional conduct includes evidence of ejecting spent shell from rifle in preparation for another shot, flight from crime scene, threats to kill witness "like I did [victim,]" and of statements from first two interrogations. As to third interrogation, appellant made no unambiguous invocation of right to silence, and statements made were merely cumulative of other evidence.
State of Missouri vs. Charles Michael O'Neal
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD74687
Grandparent Visitation Not Pled
Action for paternity and action for guardianship "require not only proof of different elements, but they serve different purposes." In action for paternity, statute and rule allow third party participation by intervention, which requires pleading and proof to support relief. Therefore, petition for guardianship does not substitute for intervention seeking custody and visitation. Also, amount of visitation awarded to grandparent at parental level exceeds constitutional impingement on parental custody.
T.W. By His Next Friend, R.W., and R.W., Individually, Respondents, vs. T.H., Appellant, and C.H., Intervenor-Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED97661
Sentencing Issues Subject to Direct Appeal
Appeal of judgment, denying motion to correct sentence, raised only matters that were subject to direct appeal, so Court of Appeals dismisses.
State of Missouri vs. Brock Griffith
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD75524
No Late Motion
After guilty plea, movant's challenge to constitutionality of conviction or sentence is due within 180 days of date that Department of Corrections takes custody of movant. Untimely filing waives all rights to that challenge. Remanded to circuit court for dismissal.
Terrion L. Jones, Movant/Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED98474