{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"mouna-apperson-f/k/a-nicholas-apperson","displayName":"Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson","totalCases":2},"cases":[{"caseId":"mo:sc101020:2026-01-23","opinionId":"ceb42d14-3e65-58e1-9e34-25818c0f3d84","slug":"mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-101020","caseName":"Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101020","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.","primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230208","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-101020","relatedPracticeAreas":[],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112529:2025-01-28","opinionId":"e8092b77-3ee7-5ce3-b993-ebe7d814f4bd","slug":"mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-112529","caseName":"Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112529","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mouna Apperson appealed the trial court's directed verdict against his defamation claims against Natasha Kaminsky and Adriane Norman. Apperson alleged Kaminsky and Norman defamed him by calling him a rapist, serial abuser, and tax evader, and that Kaminsky acted as Norman's agent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Apperson failed to present sufficient evidence of actual reputational harm beyond his own testimony for the defamation claims. The court also found Apperson failed to establish a principal-agent relationship between Kaminsky and Norman based solely on a social media post.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-112529","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}