Authors: Alfred A. Lindseth and Eric A. Hanushek
State High Court & Judicial Nominating Commission | Composition & Terms of Judicial Nominating Commission | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|---|
Terms: 6 years (staggered, except for the Chair) |
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Percentage of Lawyers on the Nominating Commission
Who Selects the Nominating Commissioners?
Latest News
- Missouri Attorney General challenges Biden administration's censorship campaign at SCOTUS - kttn
- Did feds cross a free speech line? Missouri makes case to U.S. Supreme Court - Missourinet.com
- Supreme Court likely to reject limits on White House tech contacts - The Washington Post
- [Murthy v. Missouri] Supreme Court Oral Argument - C-SPAN
- A Supreme Court social media ruling could set new free speech standards - The Associated Press
- 26th Judicial Circuit Losing the Honorable Matthew P. Hamner to the MO Court of Appeals - krmsradio.com
- Missouri attorney general says government censored social media. The Supreme Court seemed skeptical - The Daily News Online
- Supreme court hears Murthy v. Missouri case over COVID-19 disinformation - MSN
- U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Missouri social media case - KY3
- SCOTUS hears social media disinformation case, Murthy v. Missouri - USA TODAY
Scholarship & White Papers
Public Opinion Research
-
Proposals to Amend the Judicial Appointment Process
St. Louis Lawyers Chapter, 27 April 2007 – Event Audio
Featuring: Douglas Copeland, William G. Eckhardt, William J. Placke, Jo Mannies
-
Debating the Role of the Chief Justice in Judicial Selection
St. Louis Lawyers Chapter, 11 March 2008 – Event Audio
Featuring: William Placke, Woody Cozad, Tom Walsh, Randy Scherr, Samuel Hais
-
Two Perspectives on Missouri’s Non Partisan Court Plan
Kansas City Lawyers Chapter, 14 November 2007 – Event Video
Featuring: David Oliver, William Placke
Media & Commentary
-
Declining to Follow Its Neighbor Missouri, the Kansas Supreme Court Holds Noneconomic Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Cases Constitutional
The Kansas Supreme Court, in Miller v. Johnson,1 recently upheld Kansas’ statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases, including medical malpractice cases, as constitutional. Specifically, the Kansas Supreme Court held the cap, set forth in K.S.A. 60-19a02, does not violate Sections 5 and 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights providing a right to a jury trial and a right to damages, respectively. This decision is in contrast to its neighboring state’s supreme court, which recently declared a statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases unconstitutional for violation of the right to a jury trial.2
-
Missouri Supreme Court Overrules 20 Years of Precedent in Holding Noneconomic Damages Cap Unconstitutional
Overruling its own twenty-year precedent in Adams By and Through Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hospital1 (Adams), the Missouri Supreme Court, in a four-to-three decision, held in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers (Watts) that the cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210, passed as part of the comprehensive tort reform passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2005, violates article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution’s right to trial by jury.2 The Missouri Supreme Court also held that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.220 grants a trial judge authority to determine the manner by which future damages shall be paid, including what amount shall be paid in future installments.3