St. Louis County, Missouri, et al. Missouri Cases

Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one "local government" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of "local government" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.

St. Louis County and its County Executive appealed a circuit court judgment declaring that the Governor has exclusive authority to fill an imminent vacancy in the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The circuit court had also issued a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the County. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the prosecuting attorney performs essential state functions, the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to make the appointment, superseding the County Charter.

Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment that allowed St. Louis and St. Charles Counties to impose a retail sales tax on marijuana dispensaries in incorporated areas. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Article XIV, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which defines "local government" for taxing purposes. The appellate court reversed, holding that the constitutional provision unambiguously limits a county's taxing authority to unincorporated areas, while municipalities have taxing authority in incorporated areas. The court entered judgment in Robust's favor and enjoined further collection of taxes by multiple local governments.

Elicia Milton appealed the circuit court's denial of her petition for expungement of her arrest record for first-degree statutory sodomy. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding Milton could not prove no charges would be pursued due to the absence of a statute of limitations. The Eastern District reversed and remanded, holding that Section 610.123.3 and Rule 155.04(b) unequivocally mandate an evidentiary hearing for expungement petitions, and the circuit court's assumption about future charges was speculative without evidence.