2016 – Five of This Year’s Most Significant MO Supreme Court Findings

1. State
v. Bazell – Due to a legislative blunder from the 2002 Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Missouri
overturned the felony convictions of a Defendant for stealing as the charges should not have been
classified as felonies. It turned out that the legislative definition of “stealing” did not include “value of
property or services” as an element, and therefore the Defendant’s charges should have been misdemeanors.
Consequently, this decision called into question thousands of criminal convictions that involved stealing since the
2002 code was enacted.

2. State
ex rel. Heartland Title Services, Inc. v. Honorable Kevin D. Harrell – In a matter of the first
impression, the Missouri Supreme Court examined Missouri’s venue statute and whether an injury for
a malpractice tort which occurred outside the state could be brought in Missouri. The Court ruled that venue was
proper in any county in Missouri as long as both subject matter and personal jurisdiction are met.

3. Pestka
v. State – Back in 2015, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 150 (HB 150) which placed
limitations on Missouri’s unemployment benefits. Subsequently, Governor Nixon vetoed the Bill from being signed into
law. When the Assembly voted to override the veto, they did so during the September 2015 veto session. The Missouri
Supreme Court tossed the override because only bills returned by the Governor on or after the fifth day before the
end of the regular legislative session can be taken up during a September veto session.

4. Mo.
Petroleum Storage Tank Ins. Fund Bd. Of Directors v. Conoco Phillips Co. – In a significant State
civil procedure decision, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a potential intervenor does not have a right to an
immediate appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to intervene as a matter of right. This was contrary
to prior appellate court decisions which held that this type of intervention is immediately appealable.

5.
Mickels
v. Danrad – When a patient died of a terminal brain tumor, the family sued the defendant
physician for negligently failing to diagnose the tumor on a prior date. When the trial court entered summary
judgment in favor of the physician for wrongful death under Mo. Rev. Stat.
537.080.1 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court stated that the same allegations were
sufficient to state a cause of action under Missouri’s survivorship statute (Mo. Rev. Stat 537.020) despite being
insufficient for a wrongful death claim.

Gary Burger

Founder | Injury Attorney
Gary Burger has dedicated his career to standing up against bullies. The founder and principal attorney of Burger Law | St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer has helped hundreds of Missouri and Illinois individuals and families recover th …
Years of experience: 30 years
Location: St. Louis, MO

Chat With Us