Robert Eldridge Seiler

In State v. Stewart, the defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery and kidnapping after a jury trial in St. Louis circuit court and received concurrent fifteen-year sentences. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court erred by denying a defense challenge for cause to a prospective juror during voir dire who repeatedly indicated she would prefer or expect the defendant to testify in his defense and might view his silence as evidence of guilt. The court held that this was reversible error because the juror never unequivocally affirmed she would not draw an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify, violating his right to an impartial jury; it reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The decision emphasized that trial judges should err on the side of caution when excusing jurors whose impartiality is in doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved executors of an elderly nursing home resident suing the owners and operators of the facility for damages due to repeated physical abuse that caused severe injuries and eventually death. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the Omnibus Nursing Home Act authorizes such a private action. The court reasoned that the Act grants residents rights including freedom from physical and mental abuse, and provides a remedy under section 198.093 for violations of those rights, which extends to the estate of a deceased resident if proper notice is given to the attorney general.

healthcarecivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved two subsidiary companies that were part of a larger corporate group filing a consolidated federal income tax return. The subsidiaries sought to deduct on their Missouri state income tax returns the full amount of federal taxes they would have owed if they had filed separate federal returns, rather than their share of the actual lower tax paid by the group. The State Tax Commission disallowed these larger deductions and instead permitted only proportional shares based on the group's actual federal tax liability. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the state deduction is limited to the federal income tax liability actually incurred and paid by the group, as the subsidiaries did not owe or pay the hypothetical separate amounts under the relevant Missouri statutes governing federal taxable income calculations for affiliated groups.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a Missouri corporation operating grain elevators across multiple states that elected to apportion its income for state tax purposes using the single-factor sales formula under § 143.451. The Director of Revenue assessed deficiencies after including 50% of certain out-of-state sales handled through the Missouri office, and the company later sought to revoke its election and file amended returns under the three-factor formula of the Multistate Tax Compact. The Administrative Hearing Commission upheld the assessments, ruling the election irrevocable and rejecting estoppel based on a repealed regulation. The court affirmed, finding legislative intent and federal precedent supported irrevocability of the election, that the company had not shown reliance justifying estoppel, and that the prior regulation conflicted with the statute as interpreted in International Travel Advisors.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Missouri Department of Revenue violated a 1974 injunction by issuing a rule that taxed gross receipts from coin-operated amusement devices, such as pinball machines, when located in places of amusement. The trial court held the Department in civil contempt for disregarding the injunction, which had been affirmed in an earlier appeal and declared that the sales tax statute did not apply to such receipts. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the intervening decision in Blue Springs Bowl v. Spradling permitted taxation of fees paid in places of amusement and that the new rule correctly interpreted the unchanged statute as applying to the devices in those locations, so the injunction was not violated.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved siblings who were equal income beneficiaries of a 1951 testamentary trust containing a spendthrift clause; they signed a 1969 contract agreeing that upon the death of one or more, the survivors would pay a share of the received trust income to the deceased's lineal descendants. After one brother died in 1978, his sisters refused to make the payments, leading his children to sue for enforcement of the agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the precedent in Bixby v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., which had invalidated similar contracts as indirect assignments violating spendthrift provisions. The Missouri Supreme Court overruled Bixby, holding that the agreement was enforceable because it did not attempt to alienate or anticipate trust income before the beneficiaries received it, and once the funds were in their hands, they could freely contract to dispose of their own property.

property