discretionary immunity in Missouri

2015To support their assertion, Plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court’s statement in Kunzie that a municipality’s purchase of liability insurance “constitutes an absolute and complete waiver of all immunities” and then in a footnote, our high court’s further statement that “[t]his absolute waiver includes governmental function immunity, the discretionary immunity doctrine, and the public duty doctrine.” Kunzie, 184 S.W.3d at 574 & 574 n.4.

2015To support their assertion, Plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court’s statement in Kunzie that a municipality’s purchase of liability insurance “constitutes an absolute and complete waiver of all immunities” and then in a footnote, our high court’s further statement that “[t]his absolute waiver includes governmental function immunity, the discretionary immunity doctrine, and the public duty doctrine.” Kunzie, 184 S.W.3d at 574 & 574 n.4.

2019Id. at 551 .

2018"We review a trial court's exercise of that control for abuse of discretion." Burke v. Commonwealth, 506 S.W.3d 307 , 321 (Ky. 2016) (citing Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99 , 104 (Ky. 2011) ).

2018"We review a trial court's exercise of that control for abuse of discretion." Burke v. Commonwealth, 506 S.W.3d 307 , 321 (Ky. 2016) (citing Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.W.3d 99 , 104 (Ky. 2011) ).

2010In doing so it observed that *5 “[c]onsideration of his release under a discretionary standard pursuant to [sjection 559.115 ... was not part of his plea agreement.” Id. at 877 .

2010The Western District also noted that when the defendant “was unable to enter the program, through no fault of his own, he lost the opportunity to perform his part of the plea bargain and thus ensure his early release.” Id. at 876-77 .

2006Jungerman v. City of Raytown, 925 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. banc 1996), is inapplicable to cases under section 537.610 due to the difference between the waiver in section 537.610 and the imposition of liability under section 71.185.

2003Moreover, Schade describes it as a discretionary doctrine but gives no guidance as to how the proper exercise of that discretion might be reviewed. 793 S.W.2d at 469 .

1993Id.

1965The parties do not rely upon and have not briefed and argued the applicability of the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens (Elliott v. Johnston, 365 Mo. 881 , 292 S.W.2d 589 ; Annotation 43 A.L.R.2d 774 ), even though the problem has been discussed in some of the cases dealing with the question of undue burden on interstate commerce.

1965The parties do not rely upon and have not briefed and argued the applicability of the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens (Elliott v. Johnston, 365 Mo. 881 , 292 S.W.2d 589 ; Annotation 43 A.L.R.2d 774 ), even though the problem has been discussed in some of the cases dealing with the question of undue burden on interstate commerce.