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
- What the Murthy v. Missouri and Daily Wire Consent Decrees Do—and Don’t—Establish - Lawfare
- Missouri High Court Decision Offers Lessons About Advancing Voting Rights - State Court Report
- Federal Judge Has ‘Grave Concerns’ About Missouri Roundup Deal - Claims Journal
- Supreme Court ruling on Voting Rights Act and potential impact on Missouri’s 1st Congressional District - First Alert 4
- Supreme Court ruling on Voting Rights Act could impact Missouri's 1st Congressional District - First Alert 4
- Supreme Court could overturn Missouri court in Roundup cancer case - Missouri Lawyers Media
- Missouri Lawsuit Targets 'Cartel' That's Allegedly 'Seized Control' Of State's Marijuana Market - Marijuana Moment
- New 8-0 map for Missouri? Some GOP members say it’s unlikely - Jefferson City News Tribune
- Appeals court rewrites ballot summary for referendum on Missouri’s new congressional districts - Missourinet
- Court changes ballot language for effort to repeal Missouri maps — again - Kansas City Star
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


Supreme Court of Missouri