Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations

19 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Vandenboom v. The Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of City of Kan. City

    633 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    We resort "to other rules of statutory interpretation only when the plain meaning of the statute is ambiguous or defeats the purpose of the statute." Karney v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus. Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo. banc 2020) (citing Ivie v. Smith , 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. banc 2014) ). "When interpreting a statute, no portion of it is read in isolation, but rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions." Antioch Cmty. Church , 543 S.W.3d at 35 (internal quotations omitted).

  2. United States v. Myers

    56 F.4th 595 (8th Cir. 2022)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that Missouri's definition of cocaine, which does not define "isomer," is not a serious drug offense under the ACCA

    But absent ambiguity, we are "bound to give effect to the intent reflected in the statute's plain language and cannot resort to other means of interpretation." Karney v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus. Rels., 599 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo. banc 2020) ; see also Owen, 51 F.4th at 296. Because the text of the Missouri drug schedule plainly criminalized all isomers of cocaine, our inquiry ends there.

  3. Potts v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

    Case No. 4:18-00969-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. May. 28, 2020)

    The primary rule of statutory interpretation in Missouri "is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. SC97833, 2020 WL 1527084, at *2 (Mo. banc Mar. 31, 2020). The text of § 213.065 states that it is unlawful to deny anyone the "accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation" because of their race.

  4. Mo. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. Mo. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations

    623 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    The Labor Unions note both the interrelated character of the exemption with other provisions of HB 1413 and evidence that the exemption for public safety labor organizations was adopted to secure passage of the entire law. The State also notes in Karney v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2020), this Court previously severed a single provision of HB 1413. Karney is distinguishable from the challenge here.

  5. Digregorio Food Prods., Inc. v. Racanelli

    609 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    Finding shipment invoices prepared by a food-products company signed by a restaurant manager lacked explicit language evincing the restaurant owner's acknowledgment of a debt owed and unpaid to the food-products company

    "The circuit court's judgment will be upheld unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157, 161 (Mo. banc 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicability of a statute of limitations is a question of law this Court reviews de novo.Bateman v. Platte Cnty. , 363 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. banc 2012).

  6. Four B. Corp. v. City of Harrisonville

    667 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Id. (quoting Karney v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus. Rels. , 599 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo. banc 2020) ). "When interpreting a statute, no portion of it is read in isolation, but rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions." Id.

  7. Mo. Corr. Officers Ass'n v. Mo. Office of Admin.

    662 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    "[A] party seeking a permanent injunction must show only irreparable harm and a lack of adequate remedy at law." Karney v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus. Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157, 167 (Mo. banc 2020). Here, the trial court found that MOCOA was receiving nearly $13,000 per month in dues revenue before payroll deduction was terminated in December 2019.

  8. MM Fin. v. Rose

    649 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)

    But our role in examining statutes is "to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Rels. , 599 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting Parktown Imps., Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc. , 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009) ). We do not employ rules of statutory interpretation unless the plain meaning "is ambiguous or defeats the purpose of the statute." Id.

  9. Pennington v. Wilson

    639 S.W.3d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Rule 84.13(d), Missouri Court Rules (2012), and Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), govern our review. "We are required to affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." McDermot v. Doner , No. SD36775, 637 S.W.3d 402, 411 (Mo. App. Oct. 14, 2021), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Nov. 2, 2021) (citing Murphy , 536 S.W.2d at 32 ); accordKarney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157, 161 (Mo. banc 2020). Where a party asserts a misapplication of law claim, we review the trial court's legal conclusions and application of law to the facts de novo.Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Scorse as Tr.

  10. Indian Hills Civic Ass'n v. Indian Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n

    637 S.W.3d 622 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Appellants’ Points I and II seem to relate to the trial court's entry of judgment after hearing evidence at a bench trial—as to such claims, the trial court's judgment will be upheld " ‘unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.’ " Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations , 599 S.W.3d 157, 161 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). We defer to the trial court's credibility determinations, and matters of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.Medical Plaza One, LLC v. Davis , 552 S.W.3d 143, 157 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).