Abstract
In light of the court's miscarriage of justice in Crow v. Crow, this Note will focus on analyzing the supposed efficiency of amended Rule 78.07(c). This Note will begin by explaining the history leading up to Crow v. Crow and then analyzing the decision itself. With the background established, this Note will examine the effect that amended rule 78.07(c) had on the Crow court and the lingering influence it has on the judiciary at large. First, the intended outcome of the rule will be compared and contrasted with several potential outcomes in order to determine whether the amendment actually results in the intended increase in efficiency. This will include an examination of the obvious effects that occurred since the passage of the rule and the potential effects that may be unnoticed. Second, the amended rule will be analyzed to see if, even assuming it does create some judicial efficiency, it nonetheless creates a risk of unfairness beyond what was intended and what should be acceptable. Finally, some suggestions will be provided for alternative methods that could allow the court to attain the desired efficiency without any of the risks to fairness that the amended rule presents. Without a further amendment to rule 78.07(c), Crow v. Crow will be only the first case decided unjustly because of the faulty reasoning behind the current structure of rule 78.07(c).
Recommended Citation
Vincenzo Iuppa,
When Efficiency Arguments Fail: The Counter-Intuitive Effects of Amended Rule 78.07(c),
76 Mo. L. Rev.
(2011)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol76/iss1/7