Courts Bulletin - 4-Mar
The latest court decisions are summarized each month in the Courts Bulletin. This publication keeps Missouri Bar members current with rulings in selected areas of the law. Selected federal court opinion summaries, new or amended rules of court and other matters of interest to practitioners are also included from time to time. A panel of volunteer lawyers, all authorities in their respective subject areas, prepare the case summaries.

In this Issue

Administrative/Constitutional Law Procedural violations do not require substantive relief. [Donna Hall, Respondent, v. Jennings School District, Appellant], No. 82843 (Mo.App. E.D., February 24, 2004), Crahan, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Criminal Law Possession is an essential element of the offense of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, section 195.211 RSMo. The failure to define "possession" in the verdict-director is plain error since the evidence on the issue of possession was seriously disputed and the state argued an incorrect statement of the law about what constitutes possession. [State v. Jason Farris], No. 61517 (Mo.App. W.D., January 27, 2004), Breckenridge, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Family Law Division of child support enforcement and amendment of administrative order. [State ex rel Ryan v. Ryan], No. 25678 (Mo.App. S.D., January 26, 2004), Shrum, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Health & Hospital Law Adverse inference under Fifth Amendment refusal to testify is allowed in a civil case, but cannot be exclusive grounds in support of judgment. [Teresa Johnson v. Missouri Board of Nursing Home Administrators], No. 62429 (Mo.App. W.D., January 30, 2004), Ellis, C. J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Insurance Law Missouri law not required to be applied in Missouri insurance receivership. [Viacom, Inc., as successor in interest to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appellant v. Transit Casualty Company in receivership, Respondent], No. 62864 (Mo.App. W.D., March 2, 2004), Newton, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Juvenile Law (1) TPR by default on a contested ground is sufficient to invoke the presumption of parental unfitness in a subsequent TPR under 211.447.4(6). (2) Termination for parental unfitness under Section 211.447.4(6) does not violate due process because persons are conclusively presumed to know the law, and the statute placed father on notice that by defaulting in two prior terminations, those could be used as a basis for terminating parental rights of another child. (3) Father failed to successfully rebut the presumption of parental unfitness where prior terminations were for abandonment, and abuse/neglect and parental unfitness, and the same behaviors leading to the prior terminations are present in this case. (4) Termination was in the best interests of the child where there were no emotional ties, no written or verbal contact, no financial contribution and no participation in services. [In Interest of E.D.M.], No. 63008 (Mo.App. W.D., February 17, 2004), Ulrich, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Labor Law - Federal Supreme Court holds ADEA does not support claim for reverse discrimination by younger employees. [General Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline], --- S.Ct. ---, No. 02-1080 (Feb. 24, 2004).} Full Summary and Other Cases

Property Law The absence of a written contract with a municipal corporation is fatal to a request for injunctive relief for lack of an enforceable legal right. [Greg Coursen and Carolyn Coursen, Plaintiffs/Appellants v. City of Sarcoxie, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent], No. 25395 (Mo.App. S.D., January 14, 2004), Bates, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Tort Law Tortfeasor cannot intervene in family court proceeding which had granted equitable adoption, the purpose of which was to qualify adoptee under wrongful death statute to pursue claim against tortfeasor. [Deric Lee Coon v. American Compressed Steel, et al.], No. 62289, (Mo.App. W.D., January 30, 2004), Smart, J. Full Summary and Other Cases

Workers´ Compensation For purposes of SIF liability, a pre-existing total loss of sight in one eye is an injury to the body as a whole under Section 287.220 RSMo. [Thomas Pierson v Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the SIF], No. 85386 (Mo. banc, January 13, 2004), per curiam. Full Summary and Other Cases

Other Areas of Law Law permitting carrying of concealed weapons does not violate Article 1, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, but may violate the Hancock Amendment, Article X, Sections 16 and 21 of the Missouri Constitution, limitations on unfunded mandates. In fact, four counties to the suit presented evidence sufficient to show that they will be impacted financially by this legislation, and are excused from compliance with the conceal and carry law. [Brooks, et al, v. State of Missouri, et al.], No. 85674 (Mo. banc, February 26, 2004), Limbaugh, J. Full Summary and Other Cases