Albert L. Rendlen

The case concerned James Edward Moore's appeal from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for postconviction relief after convictions for rape, sodomy, and first-degree burglary based on a neighbor's identification of him as her masked assailant. Moore argued ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request blood typing and secretor status testing on semen samples despite repeated requests and available public defender funds, and postconviction testing later showed the bedsheet semen could not have come from Moore, a Type O nonsecretor. The court reversed the denial and remanded, concluding that counsel's omission prejudiced the defense as the serological evidence excluded Moore as the source of that sample. The core reasoning was that the testing was feasible at trial, the results would have altered the evidence and arguments presented, and the failure was not shown to be a reasonable strategic choice.

criminal lawprocedure

In Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., the parents of a deceased employee sued his employer and foreman alleging negligence and intentional tort after the employee died from ingesting a substance provided by the foreman while trimming trees near power lines. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission held exclusive authority under the Workers' Compensation Law to decide whether the injury was an accident or intentional act. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that precedent in Killian v. J & J Installers requires the Commission to make that threshold determination in the first instance, with judicial review available after an administrative award. The Court rejected multiple constitutional challenges to this jurisdictional scheme, concluding that the statute's administrative process and appellate review satisfy the open courts, due process, equal protection, jury trial, and separation of powers provisions.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned an architect's attempt to enforce a lien under Missouri's Architectural Lien Statute (§ 429.015, RSMo 1978) for unpaid services in preparing plans for rehabilitating a building that the defendant had contracted to purchase. After the defendant defaulted on financing, the property was foreclosed and sold, and the new owner used different architects and contractors to complete the work without incorporating the plaintiff's plans. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, ruling that no lien could attach because no actual construction used the plans, the plaintiff had not contracted with the owner at the time of the agreement, and the foreclosure extinguished any potential lien. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that the statute requires architectural services to result in actual improvement and increased value to the property, analogous to the traceability requirement in general mechanics' lien cases.

property

This case concerns a dispute between King General Contractors and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints arising from a 1984 subcontract for asbestos encapsulation and soundproofing work at the church's headquarters, which involved defective performance, extra work, and termination. In the first lawsuit (King I), the trial court dismissed most claims against the church for lack of contractual privity, abandonment of tort theories, and failure to properly plead a third-party beneficiary claim, while awarding limited damages on a quantum meruit theory; no appeal was taken. King then filed a second suit (King II) asserting third-party beneficiary breach of contract and tortious interference claims based on the same facts. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of King II, holding the claims barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction, could have been litigated in the prior action, and splitting causes of action is not permitted.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a dissolution of marriage proceeding between two physicians married in India with two daughters, in which both parties appealed the trial court's decree on custody and child support. The court affirmed the award of legal custody to the wife, finding that the 1988 statutory preference for joint custody did not apply because the petition was filed in 1987 and that the award was consistent with the children's best interests given the parents' conflicting parenting decisions and communication difficulties. On child support, the court reversed the trial court's straight-line extrapolation of the guidelines to the parties' $19,395 combined monthly income, holding that the Missouri Child Support Guidelines schedule ends at $10,000 and does not authorize extrapolation; instead, the trial court must apply the statutory factors in § 452.340, including the children's needs, the parents' resources, and the marital standard of living. The case was remanded for reconsideration of support and any post-trial changes in custody arrangements.

family law

This case involved a wrongful death claim by the survivors of Larry Oldaker, who was killed in a 1984 multi-vehicle highway accident after being struck by a car. The plaintiffs sued the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, alleging a dangerous condition on the road, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the Commission on sovereign immunity grounds in 1988, before the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Wilkes v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. The court held that Wilkes, which gave retrospective effect to 1985 amendments broadening the waiver of sovereign immunity under § 537.600, applies to this case because the summary judgment order was not properly final under Rule 74.01(b) and the issue was preserved. It therefore reversed the summary judgment for the Commission and remanded that claim, while affirming the jury verdict finding no fault by the other defendant driver. The core reasoning focused on the retroactive application of the statutory waiver and procedural rules allowing the appeal after final resolution of all claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure