The case involved Marvin Van Kirk's challenge to his removal as chief of police of Kansas City by the Board of Police Commissioners after serving about a year in the role. The circuit court affirmed the board's action, and the Missouri Supreme Court upheld that judgment. The court reasoned that the governing statute provides the chief serves at the board's pleasure with no fixed term or property right in the office, permitting removal with or without cause subject only to constitutional limits that were not violated here, and that procedural and eligibility challenges were either unpreserved or without merit.
The case concerned a constitutional challenge by liquor distillers and suppliers to portions of Missouri House Bill 810, which expanded franchise regulations to cover liquor wholesalers by prohibiting at-will terminations without good cause and imposing related requirements, with violations made felonies. The trial court held that the bill violated Mo. Const. Art. III, §§ 21 and 23 because Senate amendments changed the bill's original purpose from addressing pyramid sales schemes and general merchandising practices to also regulating liquor franchises, and because the final title failed to clearly express a single subject. The court declared the added provisions unconstitutional, severed them, and permanently enjoined their enforcement while leaving the remainder of the law intact. The reasoning focused on the legislative history, the original title and content of the bill and its predecessor, and the mismatch created by the amendments.
In State v. Phillips, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial and sentenced to 50 years in prison, with the key evidence consisting of his oral admission during a polygraph test and a subsequent written confession to police. The defendant moved to suppress the statements, claiming they were involuntary because he had invoked but was denied his Miranda rights to silence and counsel, and because police misled him during interrogation. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding after review of the pretrial hearing record that the defendant had been adequately advised of his rights, understood and waived them, and provided the statements voluntarily without improper coercion or denial of counsel. The court found no violation of constitutional protections under Miranda or related precedents that would require exclusion of the evidence.
This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by insured Abco Tank and Manufacturing Co. against its insurer Federal Insurance Co. to determine coverage under a comprehensive general liability policy for defense costs and any judgment in a pending suit for property damages from an explosion and fire during installation of a liquid propane heating facility at Doane's plant. The court reversed the adverse judgment below and held that the policy afforded coverage. The core reasoning was that installation was not completed before the fire within the meaning of the policy's completed operations hazard provisions and related endorsement excluding such coverage, because the facility could not function as required until a defective vaporizer was replaced and further work performed afterward.
The case involved an unlawful detainer action by Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against Robert and Lula Mae Scott after foreclosure on a deed of trust for property they purchased and assumed the mortgage on. The Scotts counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that Missouri's power-of-sale foreclosure statutes were unconstitutional for lacking due process notice and hearing requirements. The court affirmed the judgments for Fannie Mae, holding that Fannie Mae is not a federal instrumentality and thus not subject to Fifth Amendment due process constraints, and that the foreclosure was conducted pursuant to the private contract terms rather than state action. The court modified the damages award by consent to reflect actual rental value.
The case involved a St. Louis pawnbroker charged with violating city ordinances by failing to photograph a customer and a pawn ticket, and by not maintaining a proper register including details like the customer's age and identification numbers when pawning a saxophone. The trial court convicted the defendant and imposed fines, which were upheld on appeal despite challenges to the ordinance's constitutionality. The court reasoned that pawnbroking is a privileged business subject to strict police regulation aimed at preventing crime, such as the handling of stolen goods, and that the requirements for photographs and records are reasonable and do not violate search and seizure protections or equal protection principles.