D. Brook Bartlett

The case involved beneficiaries of an accidental death insurance policy who sued the Life Insurance Company of North America after it denied their claim for proceeds following the decedent's self-inflicted gunshot wound, which the insurer determined was a sane suicide excluded from coverage. Plaintiffs brought state-law claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, plus a claim under ERISA for wrongful denial of benefits. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It held that ERISA preempted the state claims and that, under the policy terms and Missouri precedent, suicide while sane is not an accident and thus not covered. The insurer's denial was therefore supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a male dockworker and janitor suing his employer, Holmes Freight Lines, under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging that coworkers' repeated sexual harassment created a hostile work environment, that the company retaliated by ignoring his complaints and denying medical leave, and that the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the hostile environment claim after finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct and the company's response. It granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim because the plaintiff had not alleged retaliation or related facts in his EEOC charge, failing to exhaust administrative remedies, and on the emotional distress claim, which the plaintiff conceded was barred by Missouri workers' compensation exclusivity provisions.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves negligence and product liability claims against Tokai Corporation and its subsidiary arising from a fire caused by an Aim N Flame butane lighter that resulted in the death of a four-year-old child. The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of a private cause of action under the Consumer Product Safety Act, no duty to recall or retrofit, and various design and warning issues. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims for failure to recall or retrofit and failure to warn about use by unsupervised children, but denied it on claims regarding the design of the child-resistant on/off switch and certain failure-to-warn allegations, reasoning that once a child-resistant feature was implemented, a duty of reasonable care applied, and factual disputes existed on some issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Jerrie Gray sued Tyson Foods under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex that led to her constructive discharge from her job at a Tyson facility. A jury found for Gray and awarded $40,000 in back pay, $185,000 in compensatory damages, and $800,000 in punitive damages. On post-trial motions, the court granted in part the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, upholding the liability finding but reducing compensatory damages to $50,000 and punitive damages to $100,000 on the ground that the larger awards were unsupported by the evidence and excessive. In the alternative, the court granted a new trial unless Gray accepted the reduced amounts via remittitur, reasoning that while sufficient evidence supported the verdict on liability, the damage awards resulted in a miscarriage of justice due to factors including witness conduct and the degree of reprehensibility.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves post-arbitration proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act after a NASD panel awarded claimant Chris McClelland $120,000 jointly and severally against respondents Edward Azrilyan, John Squeri, and Timothy Alan Hills. Respondent Squeri filed pro se motions to stay confirmation of the award pending a NASD decision on reopening the arbitration and to vacate the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10, claiming a fundamentally unfair hearing. The court denied the stay motion because the NASD had already declined to reopen the arbitration and denied the vacate motion as time-barred under 9 U.S.C. § 12, since notice was not served within three months of the award's delivery on or about August 1, 1997. The court granted the claimant's motion to sever the claim against Azrilyan and confirmed the arbitration award against Squeri and Hills, ordering payment of $120,000 plus 9% annual interest from the award date under NASD rules and Missouri law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by a candidate for Congress to a recent amendment to the Missouri Constitution that directed the state's congressional delegation to support a federal term limits amendment and required ballot labels for candidates who did not support it. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to block enforcement, claiming violations of the U.S. Constitution. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the claims that the amendment imposed impermissible additional qualifications on congressional candidates in violation of Article I, infringed on free speech rights under the First Amendment, and violated Article V's amendment process. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact and the defendant conceded the legal issues, the court permanently enjoined enforcement of the relevant sections of the Missouri amendment.

electionsfree speechfederal power

This case concerns a challenge by Missouri resident Donald Gralike to a state constitutional amendment (Article VIII, Sections 15-22) that directs members of Congress from Missouri to support a federal term limits amendment and requires the Secretary of State to place labels such as "DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" next to candidates’ names on ballots if they fail to support it. Gralike sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the amendment violates Article I qualifications clauses, is unconstitutionally vague, infringes First Amendment free speech rights, contravenes the Supremacy Clause via its jurisdictional provision, and interferes with the Article V amendment process. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IV (Supremacy Clause) for failure to state a claim but denied the motion as to Counts I, II, III, and V, finding that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the ballot labels function as additional qualifications or coercive measures that could burden independent legislative judgment under Article V.

electionsfree speechfederal power

This case concerns a challenge by Missouri voter and potential congressional candidate Donald Gralike to a state constitutional amendment adopted by ballot initiative that directs Missouri's congressional delegation to support federal term limits legislation and requires ballot labels such as "DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" or "DISREGARDED VOTERS' INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" next to candidates who do not comply. Gralike sued the Missouri Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Article I qualifications clauses, the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, Article V, and state initiative powers, and seeking to enjoin enforcement. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on standing, Eleventh Amendment, and Pullman abstention grounds as to the federal claims, finding that Gralike faced imminent harm from the amendment's requirements if he ran for office and that no state-law construction would resolve the federal issues. The court granted dismissal only as to the state-law Count VI concerning the scope of the initiative power under the Missouri Constitution.

electionsfree speechfederal power

The case concerned whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by adopting its 1996-97 Annual Operating Plan for the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System without first preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Plaintiffs, the State of Missouri and the MO-ARK Association, alleged that the Corps' decision to raise the drought trigger point for shortening the commercial navigation season from 39 to 52 million acre-feet constituted a major federal action requiring NEPA review. The court granted the Corps' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion, holding that the Corps reasonably determined the change was not a major federal action under NEPA regulations, did not qualify as a change in pool level operations under Corps regulations, and was not motivated by improper influences that would render the decision unreasonable.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a student, Jennifer Bosley, and her mother suing the Kearney R-1 School District after alleged sexual harassment of Jennifer by fellow students in spring 1992. The claims included violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sex discrimination under Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681), and state-law claims for negligence, breach of special relationship duties, loss of services and consortium, and slander. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, the mother's Title IX claim, and all state-law claims, while dismissing the slander claim, but denied summary judgment on the student's Title IX claim. It reasoned that the school district had no affirmative constitutional duty to prevent the harassment, that the mother was not a student eligible for Title IX relief, and that sovereign immunity or insufficient evidence barred the state claims, with the slander count lacking particularity in pleading. The student's Title IX claim proceeded due to potential evidence of intentional discrimination in the educational program.

civil rightsfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

In Goodman v. City of Kansas City, Mo., classified city employees challenged the City Manager's administrative regulations interpreting the city charter, which barred them from publicly displaying political support via bumper stickers, buttons, signs, or campaign activities, parking vehicles with political stickers in city-controlled lots, and attending fundraisers, rallies, or other political gatherings while off duty. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendants', holding that the challenged provisions violated the First Amendment as applied to classified employees. Relying on the Pickering/NTEU balancing test, the court found that the regulations imposed an undue burden on employees' protected political speech and association in connection with city elections without sufficient evidence that the restrictions were necessary to prevent workplace disruption or maintain governmental efficiency, and it permanently enjoined their enforcement.

free speechelectionscivil rights

This case involved Alan J. Bannister's third federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1983 Missouri capital murder conviction and death sentence. After the Eighth Circuit remanded for reconsideration in light of Schlup v. Delo, the district court addressed claims of actual innocence based on new affidavits, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper proportionality review by the state supreme court, and an unlawful arrest leading to inadmissible statements. The court denied Bannister's motion for an evidentiary hearing and discovery, reaffirmed its prior denial of a stay of execution, and dismissed the petition. It reasoned that the new evidence did not satisfy Schlup's actual innocence standard, that the claims were successive or abusive without a showing of cause and prejudice, and that the proportionality and other claims had already been properly rejected.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems moving to partially quash two grand jury subpoenas seeking cellular telephone service records, including application, credit, airtime, and billing information for two specific numbers. The company argued that, under the 1994 amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(C), grand juries could obtain only long-distance “telephone toll billing records,” not local call records. The court denied the motion, ruling that the subpoenas were valid and that the term “telephone toll billing records” covers all records of calls from or attributed to a particular number that are maintained in the ordinary course of business and could be the subject of a charge, regardless of whether the customer’s billing plan results in a separate charge for each call. This interpretation was drawn from the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and the absence of any reasonable basis for distinguishing local from long-distance records.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Mercantile Bank of Kansas City and two of its officers were liable as 'responsible persons' under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid payroll taxes of a borrower, Manley Truck Lines, Inc. The IRS had assessed penalties against the plaintiffs, who paid portions and sued for refunds, while the government counterclaimed for the remaining amounts. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their complaint and denied the government's motion on Count I of the counterclaim, holding that the bank and officers were not responsible persons. The core reasoning was that, despite the bank's lending relationship and oversight of accounts, it followed the company's directives on honoring checks and did not exercise independent control over how Manley's funds were spent or which creditors were paid.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Michael Smith, the owner of a former Goodyear franchise in Kansas City, Missouri, arising from actions by Goodyear employee Ken Nowak that allegedly interfered with the franchise's government tire sales contract. Plaintiffs brought claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, trespass to chattels, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, trespass to chattels, and tortious interference, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Nowak's intentional acts fell within the scope of his employment under respondeat superior principles. The court granted summary judgment on the remaining counts, including the fiduciary duty claim, because plaintiffs failed to present facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Dr. Charles Willman sued Heartland hospitals and several doctors alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, including per se violations, restraint of trade, and monopoly leveraging, as well as intentional interference with business expectancy, after his surgical privileges were revoked at the hospitals. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment on the antitrust counts, concluding that the evidence was consistent with legitimate peer review to protect patients from substandard care rather than an illegal conspiracy, and that no antitrust violations occurred. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and counterclaim, dismissing them without prejudice.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff Stafford's claims of hostile environment sexual harassment and sex discrimination against her employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, and individual supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and Missouri law. During and after trial, the court entered judgment as a matter of law for some defendants on the § 1983 claims and dismissed others, while the jury awarded damages against two defendants for harassment and constructive discharge. On post-trial motions, the court granted judgment as a matter of law to defendant Dearixon entirely and partially to defendant Williams by vacating front-pay damages, dismissed individual-capacity claims under Title VII, entered judgment for the plaintiff on her Title VII claims for sex discrimination affecting employment terms and conditions, but denied relief on hostile environment and constructive discharge claims under Title VII, and issued an injunction requiring the Department to post notices prohibiting sex discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns whether a $7,500 state-court judgment for attorney's fees, awarded after the debtor interfered with the creditor's visitation and temporary custody rights with their child, is dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court initially ruled the debt dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and (a)(6). After prior appeals addressing § 523(a)(5), the Eighth Circuit remanded for a decision on the § 523(a)(6) issue. The district court remanded the case to the bankruptcy court to determine whether the debtor's conduct was willful and malicious and whether the attorney's fees award resulted from that conduct, noting that monetary injury alone could qualify under the statute.

family lawprocedure

In Miller v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., employees sued their employer alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII and Missouri statutes, along with common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all arising from events at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the Missouri statutory discrimination claims (Counts I-VI) and one emotional distress count (VIII), while denying summary judgment on the remaining common-law claims. The core reasoning was that the plant is a federal enclave acquired with Missouri's consent, granting Congress exclusive legislative authority under the U.S. Constitution, so state employment discrimination statutes do not apply absent congressional consent; the Title VII claims were unaffected, and insufficient facts were presented on the preemption issue for the common-law claims.

labor & employmentfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Alan J. Bannister's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1983 Missouri state conviction for capital murder and death sentence in the killing of Darrell Reustman, which he carried out as a contract killing for payment. After a detailed review of the procedural history, including multiple state post-conviction motions under Rule 27.26 that exhausted all state remedies, the court denied the petition. The core reasoning addressed numerous grounds in the second amended petition, finding some claims procedurally barred due to failure to raise them properly in state court, others lacking merit under constitutional standards such as the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and still others unsupported by the record or barred by exhaustion principles.

criminal lawprocedure