Public invited to case arguments

Among the cases the Missouri Court of Appeals will hear today when it convenes in a public session at MU’s School of Law is the lesser-known of two Boonville bridge cases.

In the case, Ken Midkiff, a conservation chair at the Missouri Sierra Club, and Jeff Smith, a Washington University professor, sued the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, its director and Union Pacific Railway Company on behalf of Katy Trail users in November 2005.

The Union Pacific Railway wants to dismantle the Boonville Lift Bridge, which crosses the Missouri River near Katy Trail State Park, in order to use the steel to build a new bridge near Jefferson City. Six months before Midkiff’s file, Attorney General Jay Nixon filed suit against the same parties to keep the bridge under state control.

Midkiff and Smith claim that dismantling the bridge would violate the Interim Trail Use Agreement. According to them, the agreement says that Union Pacific must keep the bridge available for unbroken access to the Katy Trail, as stated in case summaries provided by the court.

A Cole County circuit judge ruled against Nixon in April, and Midkiff’s case was dismissed in Cole County circuit court in July. Both cases are working their way through the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over trial-court appeals in northwest and central Missouri.

Judge Victor Howard, who will preside over tomorrow’s proceedings at MU, stated in a news release that the Western District often hears arguments outside of the Kansas City headquarters.

The court’s session will begin at 9:30 a.m. Thursday in Hulston Hall at MU’s School of Law. The public is invited to hear arguments in three cases.

“This gives individuals an opportunity to observe a part of the judicial system they normally do not see,” he stated in the release. “We hope those attending will gain a better understanding of the Court’s function.”

A Cooper County case — State of Missouri vs. Scotty Ray Roark — will also be argued. It challenges a driving-while-intoxicated arrest made after the suspect had left his car and gone into a bar.

A third case will present arguments that challenge the court’s discretion in granting visitation for grandparents whose grandchildren live in another city.

The Court of Appeals hears arguments differently than trial courts. Instead of witnesses and evidence, attorneys submit written arguments that the judges read before the court session. Each side argues their case before the judges, who may interrupt with questions.