Latest 2 Cases: Di Gregorio Food Products, Inc. v. Racanelli (Business Law), State ex rel. Becker v. Honorable Gael D. Wood (Criminal Law)

What Is a Seizure, and What Is a Holding? The Court Hears Argument in Torres v. Madrid

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on two particular aspects of a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument last month, Torres v. Madrid. First, Colb discusses the distinction, for Fourth Amendment purposes, between touching someone directly with one’s hands and touching someone indirectly using an inanimate object. Second, she explains the difference between holding and dicta in a court opinion. Using these two points as illustrations, Colb shows how flexible the Constitution can be, lending itself to very different interpretations.

Read More

Di Gregorio Food Products, Inc. v. Racanelli

Docket: SC98443

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Zel M. Fischer

Areas of Law: Business Law

In this action pleading claims for suit on account and account stated the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the judgment of the circuit court in favor of DiGregorio Food Products, Inc., holding that the circuit court erred in declaring the law in determining that Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.110(1)'s ten-year statute of limitations applied to the underlying claims. DiGregorio was an ingredient supplier for John Racanelli, who operated pizza restaurants. When Racanelli stopped making payments, DiGregorio ended its business relationship with Racanelli and his restaurants. DiGregorio later brought this action, asserting claims for suit on account and account stated. The circuit court declared that the ten-year statute of limitations contained in section 516.110(1) applied and that Racanelli was responsible for the amount of unpaid invoices as damages. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) even assuming that DiGregorio proved its claims, this case was governed by the five-year statute of limitations contained in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120(1); and (2) therefore, DiGregorio's lawsuit was time barred.

State ex rel. Becker v. Honorable Gael D. Wood

Docket: SC98416

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Zel M. Fischer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing an order requiring Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Becker and an associate prosecuting attorney, Matthew Houston, to appear and provide sworn testimony under oath at a pretrial motion hearing, holding that this case did not merit a presumption of vindictiveness. Defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action. After the State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty Defendant filed a motion to strike, alleging prosecutorial vindictiveness. The circuit court entered an order requiring Becker and Houston to appear and provide sworn testimony regarding Defendant's motion to strike. Becker filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the circuit court from ordering him and Houston to provide sworn testimony. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition. The Court then made permanent its writ of prohibition, holding (1) Defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to support a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness; and (2) the circuit court's order would cause irreparable harm by requiring Becker and Houston to divulge privileged work product.