Missouri Court of Appeals

Now, we know under Deval, which is a state court case, if the deputy doesn't see certain things, the deputy can be sued.

And the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and said, no, this goes to a question of fact.

When the deputy showed up on the scene and the wife said, this is all marital property.

And the deputy said, okay, well, if it's marital property, I'm not going to take it.

thing.

Next case is Boyette v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., a Missouri court of appeals case from 1997.

And the facts are loony tunery that culminate in something I don't think even you could predict, but...

We'll see, okay? Take your guesses as I go along.

rutherford was then removed

from the compactor and transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival in 1992 patricia boyette joseph rutherford's mother filed a wrongful death action against the airline for the death of her son she alleged among other things in her lawsuit that the airline was negligent for chasing joseph rutherford and failing to protect him at the time the law held that a common carrier has a duty to exercise the highest degree of care to safely transport its passengers and protect them while in transit.

But the Missouri Court of Appeals held in 1997, here when this opinion was issued, that that duty only exists so long as the special relationship of passenger and carrier exists.

Quote, the carrier discharges its duty once the passenger reaches a reasonably safe place.

But before that could happen, another jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict against the company.

And in May 2026, Abbott suffered an even more consequential loss when the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the four hundred and ninety-five million dollar Gill verdict, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's punitive damages and describing aspects of Abbott's conduct as significantly reprehensible.

Three months later, Abbott admitted defeat without admitting guilt.

The company agreed to pay approximately six hundred and seventy million dollars to resolve NEC claims involving roughly two thousand additional infants.

Now, as you said, this plan applies to all of the appellate courts in our state.

That's the Supreme Court of Missouri, as well as the three different districts of our Missouri Court of Appeals.

And it's also been adopted by five counties to pick their trial judges in that manner.

And really, what the differentiation of the Missouri Plan is from what a lot of counties in this state still elect their trial judges.

He brought a failure-to-warn tort claim, asserting that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on Roundup's label.

A jury agreed and awarded Durnell more than $1 million, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Monsanto's argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempted the claim.

The question presented was whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state law failure to warn claim where the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without that agency's approval.

The court held the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempts Durnell's state law failure to warn claim, because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.

State tort duties constitute state labeling requirements, so Durnell's claim, which would compel a cancer warning the agency has not required, is in addition to and different from Monsanto's federal law labeling obligations.

The court's decision in Regal v. Medtronic, addressing the materially identical preemption clause of the medical device amendments, confirms that conclusion.

The judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded.

Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett joined.

Where can folks find you?

Well, I'll be hanging outside the Missouri Court of Appeals tomorrow morning.

And by the way, one of the judges is also a really good friend of mine.

But you can find me at all the social.

Kelly has to shift her entire narrative to make that work, and she really didn't.

Obviously, Byron filed appeals, and in April of 2004, the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected his appeal.

Byron argued there was insufficient evidence to convict him, since the testimony of one of the state's key witnesses was marred by contradictions and was uncorroborated.

That should just sink in for everyone.

And I must say here, just because they don't take up the case doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

It does feel like there are times where once there's a conviction, the courts, the prosecutor's office, all of it lines up to just stay against that person, no matter what evidence there is that might show that they weren't guilty of the crime.

December 5th, 2023, Attorney Brian Russell of Myercord Russell and Hurgot Injury Law, along with Miracle of Innocence and Attorney Sean O'Brien, filed a motion in the Missouri Court of Appeals seeking relief in Byron's direct appeal, arguing his conviction was the result of serious due process violations.

The motion argued that Byron's conviction was not supported by reliable evidence and was influenced by constitutional violations during the investigation and trial.