Missouri

A Wisconsin employer recently made headlines when it announced that it was offering its employees the option to be outfitted with a microchip to replace the cards or badges they use regularly while at work. The company, called Three Square Market, held a “chip party” on August 1 during which 41 out of its 85 employees opted to have the small chip implanted in their hand. Although the purpose of this RFID chip is limited to office functions such as making purchases in the break room market, logging into computers and printers, and accessing the building, one cannot help but think about the implications this type of technology could have on employee privacy.

Article I Section 22 of the Missouri Constitution holds that litigants have a right to trial by a fair and impartial jury of twelve qualified jurors. A qualified juror has been defined as one who is “in a position to enter the jury box disinterested and with an open mind, free from bias or prejudice.” Catlett v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. 793 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. Banc 1990).  The Missouri Supreme Court held earlier this month in Thaddeus Thomas et. al v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities, et. al, No. SC96034 that “The trial court is in the best position to evaluate a potential juror and is afforded broad discretion in determining whether the potential juror is ultimately qualified to serve.” The Court provided wide discretion to the trial judge’s ruling regarding the impartiality of a prospective juror.

On May 12, 2017, the Missouri Legislature passed a bill prohibiting any political subdivision from enforcing or enacting a local minimum wage ordinance.  The bill, unless vetoed, will take effect August 28, 2017, and will pre-empt the current minimum wage ordinances in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Employers in St. Louis and Kansas City should…

Yesterday, March 28, 2017, Missouri Governor, Eric Greitens, signed House Bill 153. This Bill amends parts of section 490.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo), which governs testimony of expert witness.

With the enactment of the new standards under 490.065(2), Missouri’s approach to expert testimony now aligns with that of the Federal Courts. The requirements as set out Subsection Two are identical to those of Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 and 705, which are the basis for the principles of the Daubert Standard as set out by the United States Supreme Court. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This consistency between Missouri and Federal Court standards is significant because it should make it easier to exclude unscientific “junk science.”

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently issued an important decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Dolan, holding that Missouri did not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation registered to do business in Missouri that was conducting “substantial and continuous” business in Missouri, where an alleged injury to a resident of another state arose due to conduct outside of Missouri.

December 13, 2016
New Developments
Auto Manufacturers Partner with Nauto to Improve Driverless Car Technology
By Shannon Peters

One of the main obstacles to the autonomous vehicle industry is “infrastructure,” but not in the sense typically associated with the term. Since autonomous vehicles come in all shapes, sizes, and powertrain types (gasoline, electric, and hybrid),

…

November 8, 2016
New Developments
Does Talc Cause Cancer? Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom
By Alan Hoffman

This year juries returned verdicts totaling nearly $200 million in three Missouri cases claiming that ovarian cancers is caused by using talcum powder products. By contrast, in September a New Jersey Superior Court excluded expert opinions offered to

…