Recent Cases
The Baker Group v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, 228 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2000). This case involved breaches at the end of a ten year lease to the railroad of 700 grain hauling cars owned by my client. It suffered dismissal of its tort and equity claims and summary judgment of its contract claims in the trial court. The district judge harshly criticized the Baker Group's trial lawyers on ethical grounds. (I represented those attorneys before both the Missouri Bar and the Kansas State Bar authorities where they were exonerated.) The questions on appeal included issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, conditions precedent, and res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.
Demayo v. Demayo, 9 S.W.2d. 735 (Mo.App. 2000). On appeal, I represented the mother, a school teacher. When the trial court divided the parties' property in the divorce, it included the value of her state teachers pension fund account. The law of Missouri on the consideration of that item was in flux. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment with instructions that the marital property be redivided without including her pension or either party's expectation as to social security entitlements. This resulted in a huge shifting of the allocation of the shares of the marital estate to my client's great advantage. This appellate decision was significant enough to receive front page coverage in the Missouri Lawyers Weekly.
Capital Savings Bank and Mercantile Bank v. Snelson, et alia, 998 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. App.1999). This was a complicated and heated dispute over the ownership of several large certificates of deposit transferred by a father to his son and daughter as joint tenants. The son died before the father. The son's heirs claimed part ownership due to a series of events before his death. The trial court divided the proceeds between all of the claimants. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appe ls reversed and remandedwith instructions that my client, the daughter, receive all of the proceeds. The issues turned on subtle aspects of banking law.
United States v. Diaz-Albertini. This case began as direct appeal of a federal criminal conviction in New Mexico. The paramount issues were juror misconduct and a trial judge's responsibility to inform counsel of this misconduct. The conviction was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 772 F.2d 654 (10th Cir. 1986). Strike one. I sought a rehearing, but, after a nineteen month delay, this was denied. Strike two. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, 484 U.S. 822, 108 S.Ct. 82, 98 L.Ed.2d 45 (1987). Strike three. Back in the district court, I asked for a reduction in the ten year sentence; this was denied. Strike four. I still believed that my client, Mr. Diaz-Albertini, was not guilty and that he was convicted only because the trial was inherently unfair. Therefore, I pursued a post-conviction remedy. The issue now was the trial lawyer's failure to report the juror misconduct when he learned of it instead of waiting until the client was convicted. I lost before the magistrate judge (strike five) and the district judge (strike six). I appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and lost. Strike seven. The Tenth Circuit denied me a rehearing. Strike eight. I again petitioned the Supreme Court, but this time, the writ of certiorari was granted. The case was remanded, 498 U.S. 106, 111 S.Ct. 776, 112 L.Ed.2d 839 (1991). My client was freed and returned to his family. One lesson of this case for me is if you believe in your cause, never give up. In my experience, the Solicitor General's office is supremely competent. It makes me feel good that the citizens of this country are represented by what may be the best "law firm" in the country.