IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MISSOURI IN RE: ) WILLIAM ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MISSOURI

_______________________

IN RE:

WILLIAM STANLEY DANIEL,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

Supreme Court No. SC91656

______________________

_________________________________________________

INFORMANT¡¯S REPLY BRIEF

_________________________________________________

ALAN D. PRATZEL

#29141

CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

SAM S. PHILLIPS

#30458

MELODY NASHAN #36638

STAFF COUNSEL

3335 American Avenue

Jefferson City, MO 65109

(573) 635-7400

Melody.Nashan@courts.

ATTORNEYS FOR INFORMANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITES ................................................................................................ 2

POINTS RELIED ON ......................................................................................................... 4

I. ................................................................................................................................ 4

II................................................................................................................................ 5

III. ............................................................................................................................. 6

IV. ............................................................................................................................. 7

V. .............................................................................................................................. 8

ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 9

I. ................................................................................................................................ 9

II.............................................................................................................................. 17

III. ........................................................................................................................... 20

IV. ........................................................................................................................... 23

V. ............................................................................................................................ 26

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 29

CERTIFICATION: RULE 84.06(c) ................................................................................. 30

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITES

CASES

Application of Sanger, 865 P.2d 338 (Okla. 1993).................................................12

Grievance Committee of Hartford County Bar v. Broder, 112 Conn. 263,

152 A. 292 (1930).........................................................................................12

In re Connor, 207 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. banc 1948).................................................4, 12

In re Crews, 159 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. banc 2005).........................................................9

In re Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. banc 1997)................................................4, 10

In re First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. banc 1992).....................................24

In re Foreclosures of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes by

Action in Rem Collector of Revenue v. Bhatti, 334 S.W.3d 444

(Mo. banc 2011).....................................................................................5, 6, 17

In re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. banc 1985)..........................................................11

In re Kennedy, No. SC91979 (Mo. banc, Aug. 29, 2011).........................................26

In re Lang, 641 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. banc 1982).............................................................10

In re Mills, 539 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. banc 1976)...........................................................11

In re Murphy, 732 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. banc 1987).......................................................15

In re Pate, 232 Mo.App. 478, 119 S.W.2d 11 (1938)................................................11

In re Sparrow, 90 S.W.2d 401 (Mo. banc 1935)........................................................10

In re Thompson, 574 S.W.2d 365 (Mo.banc 1978)................................................7, 23

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708,

164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006)..............................................................................5, 17

2

McIlvain v. Kavorinos, 236 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. banc 1951).......................................15

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,

70 S.Ct. 652 (1950)........................................................................................20

Niehaus v. Madden, 155 S.W.2d 141 (Mo. 1941)....................................................14

Sims v. Wyrick, 552 F.Supp. 748 (W.D. Mo. 1982).................................................14

Spielmann v. Hayes, 3 P.3d 711 (Okla. App. 2000).................................................14

State ex rel. Bar Ass¡¯n v. Livshee, 870 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1994).................................13

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass¡¯n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815,

816 (Okla. 1990)............................................................................................12

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass¡¯n v. Bolton, 880 P.2d 339 (Okla. 1994)................12

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass¡¯n v. Carpenter, 863 P.2d 1123 (Okla. 1993)..12, 14

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass¡¯n v. Moss, 794 P.2d 403 (Okla. 1990)..................12

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass¡¯n v. Samara, 683 P.2d 979 (Okla. 1984)..............12

THF Chesterfield North Dev. LLC v. City of Chesterfield,

106 S.W.3d 13 (Mo. App. 2003)...................................................................15

OTHER AUTHORITIES

¡ì484.010 RSMo 2004...........................................................................................7, 23

RULES

Rule 5.245 (2008).................................................................................................6, 22

3

POINTS RELIED ON

I.

THE RECORD AS SUBMITTED BY INFORMANT IS

PROPERLY THE BASIS OF THIS COURT'S DE NOVO

REVIEW

AND

RESPONDENT¡¯S

COMPLAINTS

REGARDING THE RECORD AS SUBMITTED ARE

UNTIMELY.

In re Connor, 207 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. banc 1948)

In re Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. banc 1997)

4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download