Latest 6 Cases: Theroff v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Arbitration & Mediation), Wilson v. City of St. Louis (Civil Procedure), State v. Smith ...

You Have the Right to the Silent Treatment

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb proposes the psychological effects of the “silent treatment” as a possible reason that arrested individuals who understand their Miranda rights nevertheless confess to the police. Rather than seeking to dispute or displace other explanations of the phenomenon, Colb suggests that when police leave a suspect alone in his cell, he may experience their exit as the silent treatment and confess as an attempt to end it.

Read More

Theroff v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Docket: SC97235

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court overruling Dollar Tree's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on a former employee's claim of disability discrimination, holding that the order was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and correctly applied the law. After Plaintiff, Dollar Tree's former employee, brought this complaint Dollar Tree filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under an arbitration agreement in the employment contract. The parties, however, disputed whether there was assent to the arbitration agreement. The circuit court denied the motion to compel arbitration after hearing testimony but did not make any findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no clear and unmistakable evidence of the existence of assent to a delegation provision, and therefore, the circuit court could not delegate the matter to an arbitrator whose existence depended upon the agreement.

Wilson v. City of St. Louis

Docket: SC97544

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Paul C. Wilson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court dismissed these appeals for lack of jurisdiction because neither appeal challenged a "final judgment" as that phrase is used in Mo. Rev. Stat. 512.020(5). The treasurer appealed from a declaratory order. The State appealed from a circuit court order sustaining a motion for summary judgment on the State's cross-claim and also appealed from an injunctive order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the declaratory order was not a judgment, let alone a final judgment; and (2) neither of the two orders that the State appealed from was a final judgment as that phrase is used in section 512.020(5) in that neither disposed of a "judicial unit" of claims.

State v. Smith

Docket: SC97811

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Powell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony possession of a controlled substance, holding that the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence obtained from Defendant's statements and a search of his vehicle after a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion to suppress because the traffic stop was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) crossing the fog line and driving on the shoulder is a traffic violation and creates a lawful justification for a traffic stop; and (2) the stop in this case was justified after Defendant's vehicle crossed the fog line and drove on the shoulder and therefore did not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Priorities USA v. State

Docket: SC97470

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court declaring the affidavit requirement of Mo. Rev. Stat. 115.427.2(1) and 115.427.3 unconstitutional and enjoining the State from requiring individuals who vote under the non-photo identification option provided in section 115.427.2(1) to execute the affidavit or in enjoining it from disseminating materials indicating photo identification is required to vote, holding that the circuit court did not err. Respondents filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Missouri secretary of state, alleging that section 115.427 unconstitutionally burdens individuals' right to vote. The circuit court entered a judgment finding section 115.427 constitutional except for subsections 2(1) and 3, the affidavit requirement, and enjoined the State from requiring individuals who vote under this option to execute the affidavit required under subsections 2(1) and 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the affidavit requirement of sections 115.427.2(1) and 115.427.3 is misleading and contradictory, and therefore, the affidavit requirement is unconstitutional; and (2) the circuit court did not err in enjoining the affidavit requirement.

Lin v. Ellis

Docket: SC97641

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law

In this suit alleging retaliation pursuant to section 213.070 of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Washington University judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), holding that Plaintiff failed to submit a cognizable claim under the MRHA. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the University claiming that her request for a reasonable accommodation of her herniated discs was a protected activity. A jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff's favor against the University. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling the University's JNOV motion because merely requesting an accommodation is insufficient to support a claim of retaliation under the plain language of the MHRA.

State ex rel. Kelly v. Inman

Docket: SC97744

Opinion Date: January 14, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Health Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's guilty by mental disease or defect (NGRI) plea that the circuit court accepted after finding Defendant lacked competence to continue with the criminal proceedings, holding that the circuit court exceeded its authority under Mo. Rev. Stat. 552.020.8 and violated Defendant's due process rights. Defendant was charged with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. After accepting Defendant's NGRI plea the circuit court found Defendant lacked competence to proceed and committed him to the department of mental health. The Defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus arguing that, pursuant to section 552.020.8, upon finding him incompetent, the circuit court was required to suspend the proceedings and commit him to the department of mental health. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, by accepting Defendant's NGRI plea despite finding him incompetent to proceed, the circuit court exceeded its authority pursuant to section 552.020.8 and violated Defendant's due process rights.