The Curators of the University of Missouri Missouri Cases

Mizzou BioJoint patients sued the Curators of the University of Missouri for injuries from unsuccessful surgeries, alleging negligent misrepresentation and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations. The circuit court dismissed the Curators and certified the judgments as final under Rule 74.01(b), but the court of appeals dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Missouri Supreme Court retransferred the case, holding that the circuit court's orders were eligible for certification as final judgments because they resolved all claims against the Curators. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the certification, sending the case back to the court of appeals for a decision on the merits.

Melinda S. Wille sued the Curators of the University of Missouri, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed her damages claim based on sovereign immunity and later entered judgment for the Curators on her amended petition for injunctive relief after a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that sovereign immunity bars monetary damages claims against the Curators for workers' compensation retaliation. The court also found the trial court's denial of equitable relief was not against the weight of the evidence, as the termination decision was made before her injury.

Dr. Rylan Brantl sued The Curators of the University of Missouri for breach of contract and related state-law claims following the termination of his neurosurgery residency. The trial court dismissed Dr. Brantl's first amended petition with prejudice, finding his claims were barred by Missouri's five-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the claims accrued when Dr. Brantl received notice of his termination, not the formal termination date. The court further determined that federal supplemental jurisdiction tolling provisions did not apply to claims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, and Missouri's savings statute could not revive time-barred actions.

Daniel L. Taylor sued the Curators of the University of Missouri, alleging breach of contract and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act related to medical billing discounts. The trial court dismissed Count II (MMPA claim) and purported to certify it as a final judgment under Rule 74.01(b). The appellate court dismissed Taylor's appeal for lack of a final judgment, holding that the dismissal of Count II did not fully resolve a distinct "claim" or "judicial unit" because both counts arose from the same operative facts.

Appellants, patients and their spouses, sued The Curators of the University of Missouri and individual doctors for medical malpractice and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act related to Mizzou BioJoint Surgery. The trial court dismissed Curators with prejudice and certified the dismissal as a final judgment for immediate appeal, while claims against the individual doctors remained pending. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's ruling was not a "final judgment" under section 512.020(5) because it did not fully resolve at least one claim, as identical claims against other defendants remained pending.

The Coalition of Graduate Workers and individual graduate workers sued the Curators of the University of Missouri, seeking a declaration that graduate workers are employees under the Missouri Constitution and an order to collectively bargain. The trial court granted summary judgment for the graduate workers. The appellate court affirmed the finding that graduate workers are employees, but reversed the order to recognize and bargain with CGW, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court found that the election held by CGW did not comply with statutory procedures for non-teacher graduate workers.

Galen Suppes, an associate professor, appealed a judgment finding him liable to the University of Missouri for breach of contract and breach of loyalty related to patent ownership. The jury awarded the University $300,000 on each claim, and the trial court also ordered Suppes to assign certain inventions to the University. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, clarifying that two specific patents were to be excluded from the assignment, and denied Suppes's other points of error regarding costs, jury instructions, and damages.