{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"administrative-law","label":"Administrative Law","description":null,"totalCases":698,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2014,"count":1},{"year":2018,"count":50},{"year":2019,"count":86},{"year":2020,"count":101},{"year":2021,"count":88},{"year":2022,"count":93},{"year":2023,"count":89},{"year":2024,"count":86},{"year":2025,"count":92},{"year":2026,"count":12}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd88567:2026-01-29","opinionId":"d0202a09-1976-5ad2-ad7b-7d8b647dfc62","slug":"emily-omohundro-v-denny-hoskins-missouri-secretary-of-state-et-al-d88567","caseName":"Emily Omohundro\nvs.\nDenny Hoskins, Missouri Secretary of State, et al.","caseNumber":"WD88567","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-01-29","year":2026,"display_summary":"Emily Omohundro appealed the trial court's approval of a summary statement for an initiative petition seeking to prevent public funds from benefiting nonpublic schools. The appellate court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair because it misleadingly suggested the elimination of aid for disabled students, failed to account for both direct and indirect aid, and incorrectly stated the initiative would \"eliminate existing programs.\" The court reversed the trial court's judgment and certified an alternative summary statement to the Secretary of State.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emily-omohundro-v-denny-hoskins-missouri-secretary-of-state-et-al-d88567","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101308:2026-01-23","opinionId":"3e87fbd8-6c3b-5141-ac25-289beec22fdf","slug":"sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","caseName":"Sean Soendker Nicholson, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC101308","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Sean Soendker Nicholson sued the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 22, alleging violations of the original purpose, single subject, and clear title provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court found SB 22 constitutional regarding these procedural limitations but unconstitutional on equal protection grounds for one section, which it severed. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement because an amendment granting the attorney general new appeal powers was not germane to the bill's original purpose concerning ballot summaries. The Court further found the offending provision could not be severed, thus invalidating SB 22 in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101157:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0337ba9b-2357-5e36-a3d9-78eb4c402946","slug":"in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","caseName":"In re:  Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101157","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87831:2025-12-30","opinionId":"f02d90f8-9ea3-5cce-8c27-4c95503358aa","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission\nvs.\nCounty Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature","caseNumber":"WD87831","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State Tax Commission initiated a mandamus action against Jackson County officials, seeking to compel compliance with its order to alter 2023 property tax assessments. The trial court dismissed the action, finding it barred by res judicata due to a prior voluntarily dismissed lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the current mandamus action was based on new ultimate facts—the County's refusal to comply with the Commission's August 6 Order—which arose after the dismissal of the first case, thus precluding the application of res judicata.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101374:2025-12-29","opinionId":"9ab7606b-97c8-5f59-bdf4-fb3fa5626e46","slug":"in-re-the-honorable-matthew-ep-thornhill-respondent-101374","caseName":"In re:  The Honorable Matthew E.P. Thornhill, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101374","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline filed findings and recommendations against Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill for judicial misconduct, including inappropriate courtroom behavior, political activity from the bench, and an improper character reference. Judge Thornhill waived his right to a hearing and admitted the charges. The Commission recommended a six-month suspension followed by an 18-month return to service and then resignation. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected this recommendation, finding that Judge Thornhill's political activity in the courtroom alone warranted his immediate removal from office.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-honorable-matthew-ep-thornhill-respondent-101374","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113472:2025-12-23","opinionId":"01b988b4-81d9-52a1-a50d-cf20b96226e7","slug":"missouri-medical-options-llc-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-health-an-113472","caseName":"Missouri Medical Options, LLC, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113472","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Missouri Medical Options, LLC (MMO) appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment against the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). MMO sought to invalidate rescinded medical marijuana cultivation regulations and compel license issuance. The circuit court dismissed the petition as moot, finding no existing controversy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a challenge to regulations already rescinded is moot, as a judgment would have no practical effect and effectual relief is impossible.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229241","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/missouri-medical-options-llc-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-health-an-113472","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87937:2025-12-16","opinionId":"8ebf41f1-9367-54f4-bebe-4d4dbac1ca2b","slug":"director-missouri-department-of-revenue-v-george-s-miller-d87937","caseName":"Director, Missouri Department of Revenue \nvs.\nGeorge S. Miller","caseNumber":"WD87937","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"George Miller appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to quash a garnishment filed by the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) to enforce a tax lien. Miller argued the tax lien was unenforceable because it was more than ten years old and had not been refiled or revived. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a certificate of tax lien filed with the circuit clerk under Section 143.902.1(2) has the full force and effect of a default judgment for enforcement purposes and is thus subject to the ten-year statute of limitations in Section 516.350.1. The court further held that applying this statute of limitations does not violate the Missouri Constitution as it only extinguishes the remedy under that specific provision, not the underlying tax debt.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228559","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/director-missouri-department-of-revenue-v-george-s-miller-d87937","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-227975","opinionId":"b4f00716-49f9-5e3d-bd4e-2ef9de80d3be","slug":"city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","caseName":"City of Jefferson, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Sprint Communications, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113433","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Jefferson, Missouri, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its claims against various telecommunication companies for delinquent business license taxes, violations of section 392.350, declaratory judgment, and accounting. The City argued the circuit court erred in interpreting the \"limitation for bringing suit\" in section 71.625.2, dismissing its section 392.350 and declaratory judgment claims as derivative or having an adequate legal remedy, and dismissing its accounting claims. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgments, holding that the City failed to comply with statutory assessment and notice requirements for tax collection, lacked standing under section 392.350, and had adequate remedies at law for its declaratory judgment and accounting claims.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113533:2025-11-25","opinionId":"4409f861-84c3-5f80-891f-646b63586587","slug":"charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","caseName":"Charles Lane, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113533","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Charles Lane challenged the validity of a City of St. Louis Charter amendment that created a Charter Commission, arguing it violated Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution by allowing the Commission to bypass the city's lawmaking body in submitting charter amendments to voters. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the City, finding the amendment valid. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Charter Amendment, when read in its entirety, provides that the Charter Commission frames proposals, but the Board of Alderman ultimately submits them to the voters, thereby complying with the Missouri Constitution.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227783","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd88066:2025-11-25","opinionId":"9dbfe659-5c0d-5db3-9062-1eadf51d1df5","slug":"victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","caseName":"Victoria Amrine\nvs. \nProgressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD88066","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Victoria Amrine appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits, which stemmed from her termination by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for failing to disclose a criminal charge. The appellate court did not reach the merits of Amrine's claims. Instead, the appeal was dismissed because Amrine's brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, including an incomplete statement of facts, deficient points relied on, and an argument section lacking legal authority and record references. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227759","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87540:2025-11-18","opinionId":"c0a6f51e-0ca5-5d3c-a4e7-1286b149b2e6","slug":"bradley-hult-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-services-d87540","caseName":"Bradley Hult\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Health and Senior Services","caseNumber":"WD87540","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bradley Hult, a registered nurse, was permanently placed on the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services' Employee Disqualification List after being found to have knowingly neglected a patient and falsified records. The circuit court affirmed Hult's placement but reduced the duration to eighteen months, finding the permanent placement arbitrary. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in part, upholding Hult's placement on the list, and reversed in part, reinstating the Department's decision for permanent placement, concluding it was not arbitrary or capricious.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bradley-hult-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-services-d87540","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101018:2025-11-04","opinionId":"d6c17f35-ba6a-5544-8fb8-9d622d2e9956","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101018","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed a judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis on his petition to compel the production of traffic stop data under Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks claimed the judgment was against the weight of the evidence because the City allegedly withheld responsive records. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Weeks failed to cite or apply the necessary four-step analytical framework to demonstrate that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The Court also expressly adopted the Houston v. Crider framework for such claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113466:2025-10-21","opinionId":"be330d76-3b64-5b6d-978b-4be11f5123c0","slug":"john-w-tippit-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-113466","caseName":"John W. Tippit, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113466","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Tippit appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss his application for review as untimely, which stemmed from an Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of his workers' compensation claim against the Second Injury Fund for failure to prosecute. The appellate court reversed the Commission's finding that Tippit's application was untimely. It held that the Division of Workers' Compensation failed to prove it properly mailed the Order of Dismissal in compliance with statutory notice requirements, thus the 20-day period for filing an application for review never began to run. The case was remanded to the Commission to determine whether Tippit had good cause for failing to respond to the show-cause notice and for failing to prosecute his claim.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226619","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-w-tippit-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-113466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87809:2025-10-21","opinionId":"25c4476e-3bf7-5dab-8374-06c646ce7dcb","slug":"dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","caseName":"Dana Miller\nvs. \nThe Missouri House of Representatives, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87809","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Dana Miller, a former Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her whistleblower claim against the House. Miller alleged she was retaliated against by Speaker Dean Plocher after reporting concerns about software procurement, campaign finance violations, and abuse of authority. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Miller failed to allege facts showing Plocher was her \"supervisor or appointing authority\" as required by the whistleblower statute, as the Speaker lacks the authority to discipline or remove the Chief Clerk under House rules.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113308:2025-10-14","opinionId":"ae53694f-4c8f-559a-bd24-abc2af661729","slug":"city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","caseName":"City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, Appellant, vs. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113308","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Creve Coeur appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, LLC, and other streaming service providers. Creve Coeur sought Video Service Provider (VSP) fees, arguing the providers fell under the Video Service Provider Act (VSPA) and were unjustly enriched. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a 2024 amendment to VSPA clarified its original meaning, excluding streaming content, thus no VSP fees were owed and no constitutional violation occurred, nor was there a basis for unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113329:2025-09-30","opinionId":"dea8e9e5-bee6-524b-a242-c0ec61cdcd6b","slug":"samantha-bordas-appellant-v-fedex-freight-inc-and-division-of-employment-113329","caseName":"Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113329","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Samantha Bordas appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss her application for unemployment benefits review as untimely. Bordas, who was terminated by FedEx Freight, Inc. due to absences, argued her absences were due to a hostile work environment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commission's decision that it lacked statutory authority to review the claim because Bordas's application for review was filed two months past the mandatory 30-day deadline.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225356","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samantha-bordas-appellant-v-fedex-freight-inc-and-division-of-employment-113329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38916:2025-09-24","opinionId":"a5ffa1f2-dd41-51d9-9b74-c199de26b9a0","slug":"robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","caseName":"ROBERT BYERS, Appellant\nv.\nNEW PRIME, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38916","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Byers, a truck driver, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, contending that the evidence overwhelmingly proved he was permanently and totally disabled (PTD). The Commission had found Byers not credible based on surveillance video and rejected his experts' opinions, instead relying on the employer's medical expert. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, holding that it was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the court would not substitute its judgment on witness credibility or the weight of competing medical opinions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113189:2025-09-16","opinionId":"d257dab2-c36f-57de-ac33-f3414bedcbe0","slug":"jayla-chairse-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-113189","caseName":"Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113189","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jayla Chairse appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision dismissing her application for review concerning an unemployment benefits overpayment. The Commission had dismissed her application as untimely. The appellate court dismissed Chairse's appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was filed beyond the statutory 20-day deadline after the Commission's decision became final. The court also held that the Commission's certification of mailing was sufficient evidence of notice for purposes of calculating the appeal deadline.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224918","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jayla-chairse-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-113189","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113098:2025-09-02","opinionId":"5fad49f7-3d71-5b6f-b419-52f976060e73","slug":"alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","caseName":"Alana Hauck, Respondent, vs. The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113098","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Alana Hauck sought service-connected disability retirement benefits from The Police Retirement System of St. Louis (PRS), which denied her application. The circuit court reversed PRS's decision, and PRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that PRS erred by improperly applying alleged symptom magnification to the exclusivity requirement for benefits. The case was remanded to PRS for reconsideration of whether Hauck's incapacitation was the exclusive result of her work accident, and Hauck's motion for attorney's fees was denied.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","workers-compensation","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-222933","opinionId":"5e424bb6-760f-5b83-b138-41b97347e3d5","slug":"louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","caseName":"Louis Jones, et al. \nvs. \nMissouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87295","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-05","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claimants, recipients of Tort Victims Compensation Fund awards, sued the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the Division of Workers' Compensation after the Division paid only 40% of their approved claims, contending the payment calculation was erroneous. The circuit court denied relief, finding the suits barred by sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively, that the calculation was proper. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's conclusions on sovereign immunity and administrative exhaustion but affirmed the judgment that the Division's payment calculation was lawful.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100898:2025-07-22","opinionId":"5ce2fd97-3809-5985-adb5-ae7abbe9c25d","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100898","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one \"local government\" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of \"local government\" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222378","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112875:2025-07-22","opinionId":"16ad2185-1fae-512b-aafd-0bee13dc20e9","slug":"tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","caseName":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, Respondent, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112875","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation purchased a property at a sheriff's sale under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law (MLRL). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) had previously recorded a lien on the property for unpaid sewer bills, pursuant to one of its ordinances. Tabernacle filed a quiet title action to extinguish the MSD lien, arguing the MLRL supersedes the MSD ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tabernacle, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the MLRL statute prevails over the MSD ordinance and extinguishes the lien.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87676:2025-07-08","opinionId":"30cb0433-291d-5c8f-853c-8e43a96c27eb","slug":"vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","caseName":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC\nvs.\nDavid Benham and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD87676","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award David Benham unemployment benefits. Benham was discharged for allegedly conducting an unauthorized investigation and gossiping about a coworker's nude photograph. The Commission found that Vendtech did not meet its burden to prove misconduct, crediting Benham's testimony that he was merely verifying information before reporting it to supervisors and that his job duties were unclear. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it supported by competent and substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221961","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113099:2025-06-17","opinionId":"63b4cfb3-a69c-541c-988c-70d349e7a8ab","slug":"brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","caseName":"Brian White, Respondent, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113099","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (SIF), appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to Brian White. White's award was based on a chest injury combined with a preexisting occupational shoulder disease. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that occupational diseases do not qualify as a preexisting disability for SIF liability under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii), consistent with a recent Supreme Court of Missouri decision. The case was remanded for the Commission to consider other potential bases for SIF liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221421","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87448:2025-06-03","opinionId":"1b6d29ba-7aa6-5b45-9c61-7b53ee61bf29","slug":"dana-casnocha-jones-v-state-board-of-nursing-d87448","caseName":"Dana Casnocha-Jones vs. State Board of Nursing","caseNumber":"WD87448","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Dana Casnocha-Jones's nursing license was revoked by the State Board of Nursing, but the trial court reversed that decision and ordered a probated license. Casnocha-Jones then sought attorney's fees, which the trial court partially granted, awarding fees incurred during the Board's appeal. The Board appealed this award of attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Casnocha-Jones had waived her right to attorney's fees in a settlement agreement and that her application for fees was untimely.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","contracts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221087","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-casnocha-jones-v-state-board-of-nursing-d87448","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112719:2025-06-03","opinionId":"144b575b-baf1-5471-ba93-df7c55fa3aa7","slug":"christopher-schmitz-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-112719","caseName":"Christopher Schmitz, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112719","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Christopher Schmitz appealed the suspension of his driver's license by the Director of Revenue, stemming from a driving while intoxicated arrest. He argued the trial court erred in admitting the police report and that, without it, there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that even if the police report was inadmissible, other evidence, specifically the bodycam video admitted without limitation, provided substantial evidence to support the probable cause finding for the DWI arrest.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","evidence","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-schmitz-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-112719","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113075:2025-05-27","opinionId":"bd00de80-065e-5d20-bc2c-953963963918","slug":"jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","caseName":"Jeremy Jarvis, Appellant, v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy Jarvis appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim against the Second Injury Fund. Jarvis, an iron worker, sustained a primary work injury in 2015, which he argued, when combined with preexisting disabilities, rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The Commission denied benefits, finding that one of Jarvis's three preexisting disabilities did not meet the statutory fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its application of the law or in finding its decision supported by competent and substantial evidence, as a claimant cannot rely on a non-qualifying preexisting disability for Fund benefits.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220923","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112938:2025-05-06","opinionId":"a8e914ac-7aa4-5751-a6a8-b0a2d8ac31fb","slug":"cedric-a-jackson-respondent-v-true-manufacturing-co-appellant-and-divisio-112938","caseName":"Cedric A. Jackson, Respondent, vs. True Manufacturing Co., Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112938","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"True Manufacturing Co. appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found Cedric A. Jackson was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's determination that Jackson was not discharged for misconduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Commission erred by ruling the employer's hearsay evidence was incompetent despite no timely objection, thereby denying the employer a fair hearing and acting in excess of its powers.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220340","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cedric-a-jackson-respondent-v-true-manufacturing-co-appellant-and-divisio-112938","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112842:2025-05-06","opinionId":"f8b7ca7d-3648-5d18-8da7-0a38311018ce","slug":"planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri-respondentcr-112842","caseName":"Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112842","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri appealed a trial court's partial enforcement of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Attorney General, which sought documents related to gender transition services for minors under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The trial court had partially enforced the CID but limited disclosure to documents not protected by HIPAA, requiring patient waivers. The appellate court affirmed that the CID was valid and enforceable under the MMPA, finding medical services are covered merchandise and the AG's authority is broad. However, it reversed the HIPAA ruling, clarifying that de-identified health information is not protected and patient waiver is not the sole disclosure method. The case was remanded for the trial court to order PPGR to respond to the CID in compliance with state and federal law.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220339","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri-respondentcr-112842","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113476:2025-04-29","opinionId":"50b1f1b0-6d46-5846-9a8c-e5cd8b44b467","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jacqueice-wynn-relator-v-honorable-scott-alan-li-113476","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Jacqueice Wynn, Relator, vs. Honorable Scott Alan Lipke, Circuit Judge, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113476","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jacqueice Wynn sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to release her on probation after she completed a 120-day shock incarceration program. The trial court had denied her release and ordered the execution of her seven-year sentence without conducting a statutorily required hearing. The appellate court issued a preemptory writ of mandamus, directing the circuit judge to release Wynn on probation, finding that the judge exceeded his authority by failing to hold the hearing within the timeframe mandated by Section 559.115.3.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220118","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jacqueice-wynn-relator-v-honorable-scott-alan-li-113476","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100784:2025-04-29","opinionId":"10d00d0c-611c-52aa-af93-bf25dce52d08","slug":"james-eckardt-appellantcross-respondent-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custod-100784","caseName":"James Eckardt, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100784","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Eckardt appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Eckardt argued the Commission misconstrued evidence regarding his right shoulder injury and erred by not applying a load factor to enhance its permanent partial disability (PPD) rating. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the load factor analysis was eliminated by statutory amendments and that Eckardt failed to prove PTD based solely on qualifying preexisting injuries.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220176","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-eckardt-appellantcross-respondent-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custod-100784","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100876:2025-04-29","opinionId":"10fc8ee4-0b69-563e-9ca2-0ebc0cbbb2db","slug":"raymond-mccarty-et-al-plaintiffs-v-missouri-secretary-of-state-et-al-defe-100876","caseName":"Raymond McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Missouri Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.","caseNumber":"SC100876","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Raymond McCarty and other registered Missouri voters challenged the results of the November 2024 election approving Proposition A, an initiative petition. They alleged the ballot title's summary statement and fiscal note summary were misleading, constituting an election irregularity, and that Proposition A violated single subject and clear title requirements. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed its original jurisdiction over the election irregularity claims but dismissed the constitutional validity claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court ultimately found no election irregularity, holding that the ballot title was not materially inaccurate or misleading, and thus upheld the election results for Proposition A.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/raymond-mccarty-et-al-plaintiffs-v-missouri-secretary-of-state-et-al-defe-100876","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100693:2025-04-29","opinionId":"af266b5f-8878-56b1-a502-f1407ceae222","slug":"treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-ap-100693","caseName":"Treasurer of the State of Missouri – Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant, vs. Diana Penney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100693","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Diana Penney sought permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund, claiming her primary occupational injury combined with two preexisting occupational diseases rendered her permanently disabled. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded benefits, but the Second Injury Fund appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that preexisting occupational diseases do not qualify as \"compensable injuries as defined in section 287.020\" under the relevant Second Injury Fund statute, thus precluding Penney's claim for benefits.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220175","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-ap-100693","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100809:2025-04-29","opinionId":"e306779e-ba4c-5dbb-aeb5-607a9c93ca6c","slug":"trent-berhow-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100809","caseName":"Trent Berhow, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100809","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Trent Berhow, an incarcerated person, sued the State of Missouri for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder at Western Missouri Correctional Center. The circuit court granted the State's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Berhow's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that the one-year statute of limitations for actions against the Department of Corrections also applies to suits against the State when the Department acts as its agent, preventing circumvention of the statute.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220177","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/trent-berhow-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112856:2025-04-22","opinionId":"f03fc579-35e1-5771-9438-271241568257","slug":"gregory-fx-daly-in-his-official-capacity-as-the-collector-of-revenue-for-112856","caseName":"Gregory F.X. Daly, in his official capacity as the Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. Mary Anne Helmsing, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112856","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Gregory F.X. Daly, the Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, appealed a circuit court judgment that found Mary Anne Helmsing's income from several limited liability companies was not subject to the City's earnings tax. The Collector argued Helmsing was precluded from challenging the taxes due to failure to pay under protest and that her income was taxable. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Helmsing was not precluded from challenging the taxes and that her income as a non-active limited partner was not \"earned\" income subject to the City's earnings tax.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-fx-daly-in-his-official-capacity-as-the-collector-of-revenue-for-112856","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112985:2025-04-22","opinionId":"13b5d924-5743-5c60-bf74-22d86c47a641","slug":"board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-appellant-v-missouri-charter-p-112985","caseName":"Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112985","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Board of Education of the City of Saint Louis (SLPS Board) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The petition challenged the establishment of a charter school within its district, alleging procedural violations of charter school statutes. The trial court had dismissed the petition for lack of standing. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the SLPS Board possessed legally protectable interests conferred by statute, thereby establishing its standing to bring the action. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the petition.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219857","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-appellant-v-missouri-charter-p-112985","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87329:2025-04-15","opinionId":"33024c62-9159-5f31-9e8a-34435d55d686","slug":"aaron-stock-v-policemens-and-firemens-retirement-fund-of-the-city-of-rich-d87329","caseName":"Aaron Stock\nvs.\nPolicemen's and Firemen's Retirement Fund of the City of Richmond Heights, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87329","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Aaron Stock, a firefighter, sought duty-related disability benefits from the City of Richmond Heights' Retirement Fund for a wrist injury. The Fund's Board determined his disability was not duty-related, awarding a lower pension. Stock appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Board's decision to credit certain expert medical opinions over others was supported by competent and substantial evidence, and that Stock waived any objection to the experts' qualifications by not raising it at the administrative hearing.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","evidence","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-stock-v-policemens-and-firemens-retirement-fund-of-the-city-of-rich-d87329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112792:2025-03-25","opinionId":"666acc45-1c43-5885-9dbe-0cf40320d43d","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112792","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a $250,000 settlement paid to a plaintiff for discovery misconduct by the Attorney General's office and the Board of Police Commissioners. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding it was entitled to reimbursement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the legally significant date for a SLEF claim is when the suit or claim is filed, not when the underlying conduct occurred, and the City's claim was filed after the statutory deadline for reimbursement.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38504:2025-03-20","opinionId":"b4415798-a77d-5f1b-9367-2d74d16643bd","slug":"mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","caseName":"MARK WALTON, Appellant\nv.\nTREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38504","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark Walton appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for permanent and total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission found Walton's preexisting left-shoulder injury did not meet the fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold required by §287.220.3. On appeal, Walton argued that a portion of a prior enhanced PPD award should be added to meet this threshold. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that §287.220.3 does not permit using a prior enhanced PPD award to supplement an otherwise non-qualifying injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-218415","opinionId":"af41ce67-81bc-5ff0-9dbf-1e765a0a0cb2","slug":"department-of-mental-health-v-the-honorable-michael-c-heffernon-d86966","caseName":"Department of Mental Health\nvs.\nThe Honorable Michael C. Heffernon","caseNumber":"WD86966","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Judge Michael C. Heffernon, a municipal judge, appealed a circuit court's permanent writ of prohibition that prevented him from ordering the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to perform competency examinations on individuals charged with municipal ordinance violations. Judge Heffernon argued that Section 552.020 RSMo granted him this authority or that municipal courts possessed inherent powers to do so. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Section 552.020 applies only to criminal offenses (felonies and misdemeanors), not civil municipal ordinance violations, and that municipal courts lack inherent authority to compel a state agency to perform such examinations without statutory authorization.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/department-of-mental-health-v-the-honorable-michael-c-heffernon-d86966","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86126:2025-03-18","opinionId":"0f955b32-7fec-5b6d-81c4-e60e760af2db","slug":"jessica-a-goodman-saline-county-assessor-v-saline-county-commission-and-k-d86126","caseName":"Jessica A. Goodman, Saline County Assessor\nvs.\nSaline County Commission and Kile Guthrey, Jr., Presiding Commissioner, and Stephanie Gooden, Northern Commissioner, and Charles Monte Fenner, Southern Commissioner, and Cindi Sims, Saline County Collector","caseNumber":"WD86126","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jessica Goodman, Saline County Assessor, sued the Saline County Commission and Collector over the required percentage of property taxes for the assessment fund and the legality of compensating her employees for a day off. The circuit court dismissed her petition for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims concerning the assessment fund percentage and employee compensation, finding the latter violated the Missouri Constitution. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the claim regarding the county's reclassification from fourth-class to third-class, remanding that issue for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218550","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-a-goodman-saline-county-assessor-v-saline-county-commission-and-k-d86126","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112795:2025-03-18","opinionId":"87d35010-5f2d-5ef6-9df6-3dd7324f73f4","slug":"jerry-thomas-appellant-v-collins-hermann-inc-and-state-of-missouri-second-112795","caseName":"Jerry Thomas, Appellant, vs. Collins & Hermann, Inc., and State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112795","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jerry Thomas appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision reversing an award of permanent and total disability benefits against the Second Injury Fund. Thomas argued his prior right knee disability was a compensable injury, his prior knee disabilities met the 50-week threshold, and denying benefits left him without a remedy. The appellate court affirmed the Commission, holding that Thomas failed to prove his right knee injury was a compensable injury and that his \"without a remedy\" argument was unpreserved for review.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218541","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-thomas-appellant-v-collins-hermann-inc-and-state-of-missouri-second-112795","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112759:2025-03-18","opinionId":"a40b0527-e255-5a3d-a69c-825732ab7378","slug":"angela-d-stevens-appellant-v-bjc-health-system-and-division-of-employment-112759","caseName":"Angela D. Stevens, Appellant, v. BJC Health System and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112759","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Angela Stevens appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that she lacked good cause for missing her unemployment benefits hearing. Stevens, initially disqualified for misconduct, claimed she missed the hearing due to a clerical error in noting the time. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that a clerical error in noting a hearing time does not constitute good cause for failing to appear, and dismissed other points not addressed by the Commission.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218540","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-d-stevens-appellant-v-bjc-health-system-and-division-of-employment-112759","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112714:2025-03-18","opinionId":"29b8dbb9-2162-5a50-bcf0-b757b116b835","slug":"arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","caseName":"Arch Energy, L.C., Appellant, v. City of Brentwood, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112714","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arch Energy, L.C. challenged an amendment to the City of Brentwood's zoning ordinance that removed gas stations as a conditional use in a specific district. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed the summary judgment as to Count I, holding that Arch Energy was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for its facial challenge to the ordinance and that the City failed to provide the statutorily mandated public notice for the amendment. The court also dismissed other points challenging the denial of Arch Energy's summary judgment motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218539","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112717:2025-03-11","opinionId":"3b8404e3-004e-5251-a522-cff6f58550be","slug":"david-p-oetting-appellant-v-city-of-ladue-et-al-respondents-112717","caseName":"David P. Oetting, Appellant, v. City of Ladue, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112717","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Oetting appealed the issuance of building permits by the City of Ladue to neighboring property owners, alleging the lot failed to meet frontage requirements. Ladue's Zoning Board of Adjustment dismissed Oetting's appeal as untimely, a decision subsequently affirmed by the circuit court. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Oetting failed to file a timely appeal to the Board because he had notice of the permit's issuance well in advance of his appeal.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-p-oetting-appellant-v-city-of-ladue-et-al-respondents-112717","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112620:2025-03-11","opinionId":"5b2f2bf3-b0f6-5e80-bf73-610128c12ff5","slug":"harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","caseName":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, Respondent, v. City of Cottleville, MO, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112620","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, sought to construct a mixed-use project, receiving final plan and construction plan approval from the City of Cottleville. The City later issued a stop work order, claiming construction had not begun within one year, causing the final plan to expire under municipal code section 405.390(C). The City's Board of Adjustment upheld the order, but the trial court reversed, finding construction had begun. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the work performed by Harmony Pointe constituted \"construction\" under the municipal code, thus the final plan had not expired.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218552","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112661:2025-03-04","opinionId":"e6fee4db-5cab-59d8-8e6e-ee4eae07b8d1","slug":"joshua-lasley-respondent-v-st-louis-county-et-al-appellants-112661","caseName":"Joshua Lasley, Respondent, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112661","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Joshua Lasley, a St. Louis County police officer, appealed a disciplinary action, but the St. Louis County Board of Police Commissioners sought to delegate his appeal to a hearing officer. Lasley filed for a writ of prohibition, arguing the Board lacked authority to delegate. The trial court issued a permanent writ, which the Board appealed, also arguing the case was moot. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Board lacks explicit authority to delegate disciplinary appeal hearings and that a justiciable controversy remained, thus the case was not moot.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-lasley-respondent-v-st-louis-county-et-al-appellants-112661","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112891:2025-03-04","opinionId":"f9fe7f75-d185-5ed6-9429-a3f17659f2e5","slug":"arnold-shute-et-al-appellants-v-board-of-zoning-adjustments-of-franklin-c-112891","caseName":"Arnold Shute, et al., Appellants, vs. Board of Zoning Adjustments of Franklin County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112891","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arnold Shute and Nancy Durnin appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for judicial review of a Franklin County Board of Zoning Adjustment decision, which granted Vertical Bridge a variance for a wireless communications tower. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Shute's first two points on appeal were noncompliant with Rule 84.04, and his remaining points regarding the merits of the variance were not preserved because they were not raised before the Board. The court emphasized the duty of complainants to preserve claims in zoning litigation.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218059","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arnold-shute-et-al-appellants-v-board-of-zoning-adjustments-of-franklin-c-112891","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100875:2025-02-28","opinionId":"b72533fe-18c8-54bc-a702-697e5d505ff5","slug":"in-re-the-honorable-joe-don-mcgaugh-respondent-100875","caseName":"In re: The Honorable Joe Don McGaugh, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100875","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline recommended a six-month suspension for Judge Joe Don McGaugh due to judicial misconduct, including a pattern of untimely rulings in numerous cases and dishonesty with the Commission. Judge McGaugh admitted the allegations. The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Judge McGaugh without pay for one year, with continued monitoring, asserting its ultimate authority to determine judicial discipline and rejecting arguments that it was bound by the Commission's recommendation. The Court also denied Judge McGaugh's request to serve his suspension under disability retirement.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-honorable-joe-don-mcgaugh-respondent-100875","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87187:2025-02-25","opinionId":"557ada8c-9fe0-5e67-852d-cca614174cb2","slug":"jamie-snethen-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d87187","caseName":"Jamie Snethen\nvs.\nMissouri State Board of Nursing","caseNumber":"WD87187","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jamie Snethen, a licensed practical nurse, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the Missouri State Board of Nursing's order. The Board imposed additional discipline on Snethen's nursing license after she violated the terms of her probation, which included alcohol abstinence and daily check-ins. Snethen argued the Board abused its discretion in denying a continuance, that the discipline was unsupported by evidence, and that the alcohol restrictions violated the ADA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no prejudice from the continuance denial, sufficient evidence for the discipline, and that Snethen waived her challenge to the 2018 order and failed to prove an ADA violation for the 2023 order.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-snethen-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d87187","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112703:2025-02-25","opinionId":"10da62c8-b24c-5c25-abc1-7501d6cfd53a","slug":"leon-thomas-jr-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112703","caseName":"Leon Thomas, Jr., Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112703","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leon Thomas, Jr. appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found he was overpaid unemployment benefits and ordered repayment because he failed to report vacation pay. On appeal, Thomas argued that the uncashed vacation pay check did not qualify as income, an argument the court noted was not raised below. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that \"wages\" for unemployment purposes include amounts \"payable\" for personal services, such as vacation pay, regardless of whether the claimant cashed the check.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217798","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leon-thomas-jr-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112703","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112598:2025-02-25","opinionId":"6c9cca8f-a902-5e37-8d0f-1997f1b3622d","slug":"michael-c-schmidt-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112598","caseName":"Michael C. Schmidt, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112598","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael C. Schmidt appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming an Appeals Tribunal's finding that he was overpaid $4,900 in unemployment benefits. The overpayment stemmed from a disqualification determination issued ten months after benefits were paid, which Schmidt argued was untimely and led to the bulk of the overpayment. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Division of Employment Security failed to comply with its statutory mandate to promptly examine claims and that the overpayment calculation was not supported by substantial evidence due to the Division's procedural delay.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217796","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-c-schmidt-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112598","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87111:2025-02-19","opinionId":"cd890e1c-31bb-53b8-ae2d-912cbe293432","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeremy-starr-v-board-of-trustee-for-the-firefigh-d87111","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Jeremy Starr\nvs.\nBoard of Trustee for the Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust","caseNumber":"WD87111","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy Starr, a firefighter, sought a duty-related disability pension for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome. The Pension Board denied his claim for duty-related benefits, awarding a non-duty pension instead, which the circuit court reversed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Pension Board improperly rejected unanimous expert medical opinions on causation by substituting its own lay judgment and mischaracterizing the experts' reliance on Starr's job descriptions. The case was remanded to the Pension Board with directions to award Starr the duty-related disability pension benefits.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","evidence","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeremy-starr-v-board-of-trustee-for-the-firefigh-d87111","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38584:2025-01-31","opinionId":"00475bbd-03de-5dc3-8e67-b9e499605f40","slug":"valhalla-restaurants-llc-dba-mcdonalds-employer-appellant-v-kiara-page-cl-d38584","caseName":"VALHALLA RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a MCDONALD'S, Employer-Appellant\nvs.\nKIARA PAGE, Claimant-Respondent and DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38584","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-31","year":2025,"display_summary":"Valhalla Restaurants, LLC d/b/a McDonald's appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed an award of unemployment benefits to former employee Kiara Page. The Commission found Page was not disqualified for misconduct, specifically rejecting claims of insubordination and an inappropriate relationship. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission erred by failing to consider uncontroverted evidence of Page's chronic tardiness and absenteeism, which constituted misconduct under state law.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/valhalla-restaurants-llc-dba-mcdonalds-employer-appellant-v-kiara-page-cl-d38584","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38539:2025-01-30","opinionId":"271b206e-7d85-5503-bd58-4cac0bd43730","slug":"rick-parker-assessor-reynolds-county-missouri-appellant-v-the-doe-run-res-d38539","caseName":"RICK PARKER, Assessor Reynolds County, Missouri, Appellant\nvs.\nTHE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38539","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rick Parker, Assessor for Reynolds County, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the State Tax Commission's (STC) decision regarding the property tax assessment of The Doe Run Resources Corporation's leasehold interest in federal land. The Assessor contended the STC misapplied Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n by using the \"bonus value\" method instead of the Assessor's \"income-based royalty approach.\" The appellate court affirmed, holding that Frontier Airlines controls, requiring the \"bonus value\" method for leasehold interests in tax-exempt property, and the Assessor's proposed method improperly valued the tax-exempt real estate itself.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rick-parker-assessor-reynolds-county-missouri-appellant-v-the-doe-run-res-d38539","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112624:2025-01-28","opinionId":"d8e568c4-8d21-59e6-b0b0-e0371f338b5a","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-112624","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112624","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed a judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis, which denied his petition for an injunction to produce records under Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks requested traffic stop data in \"worksheet\" or \"Excel workbook\" format, but the City responded it had no existing records in that specific format, though it possessed the data in .csv files. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court's finding that the City did not possess an existing record responsive to Weeks' specific request was not against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217017","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-112624","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87007:2025-01-28","opinionId":"cfa748a4-89ab-5e28-bfba-339b39855762","slug":"elad-gross-v-eric-schmitt-et-al-d87007","caseName":"Elad Gross\nvs.\nEric Schmitt, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD87007","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Elad Gross appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Attorney General's Office (AGO) on his claims that the AGO violated the Sunshine Law and the Missouri Constitution's free speech protections. Gross also challenged the trial court's protective order closing discovery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in closing discovery due to Gross's failure to provide a transcript. The court further held that the AGO properly complied with the Sunshine Law regarding record production delays and the closure of records related to potential litigation, thus rejecting the free speech retaliation claim.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216937","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elad-gross-v-eric-schmitt-et-al-d87007","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-216874","opinionId":"9a3ba590-3188-50f5-8525-fc7121d52627","slug":"iria-hapsari-h-kline-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-responde-112419","caseName":"Iria Hapsari H. Kline, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112419","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Iria Hapsari H. Kline appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decisions upholding the Division of Employment Security's finding that she was overpaid state and federal unemployment benefits. Kline argued she was improperly deprived of representation because her attorney did not receive the requisite notice of the hearing. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decisions, finding that the record lacked sufficient competent evidence to show that the Division had notified Kline's counsel of the hearing, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216874","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/iria-hapsari-h-kline-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-responde-112419","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87032:2025-01-08","opinionId":"cb028a87-17fe-54b2-8a34-b379d6b647cd","slug":"robert-balliu-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-secon-d87032","caseName":"Robert Balliu\nvs.\nTreasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD87032","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Balliu appealed the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied his claim for worker's compensation from the Second Injury Fund (SIF) for a 2015 work-related injury. Balliu contended that a prior 1999 hernia combined with his 2015 injury to cause permanent total disability, making the SIF liable. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the SIF is not liable when the primary injury alone, not in combination with a preexisting disability, results in permanent total disability, and found the Commission's factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-balliu-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-secon-d87032","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113210:2025-01-02","opinionId":"33f49b25-082c-5e6d-837a-5fcdaf005495","slug":"state-of-missouri-et-al-respondents-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-al-appe-113210","caseName":"State of Missouri, et al., Respondents, v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113210","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"St. Louis County and its County Executive appealed a circuit court judgment declaring that the Governor has exclusive authority to fill an imminent vacancy in the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The circuit court had also issued a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the County. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the prosecuting attorney performs essential state functions, the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to make the appointment, superseding the County Charter.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-et-al-respondents-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-al-appe-113210","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100455:2024-12-23","opinionId":"53a83860-33a0-51fc-8556-cb2c3b9158e0","slug":"vernell-beach-by-and-through-his-natural-mother-and-legal-guardian-yoland-100455","caseName":"Vernell Beach, By and Through His Natural Mother and Legal Guardian, Yolanda Walton, Respondent, v. Kenneth Zellers, Commissioner, Office of Administration State of Missouri and Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100455","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Vernell Beach, through his legal guardian, sought a permanent writ of mandamus to compel the State of Missouri to satisfy an $8 million default judgment from the State Legal Expense Fund, stemming from injuries Beach incurred from a state employee. The circuit court granted the permanent writ without first issuing a preliminary order in mandamus. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the failure to issue a preliminary order prejudiced the state by denying it the required opportunity to file responsive pleadings and present defenses.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vernell-beach-by-and-through-his-natural-mother-and-legal-guardian-yoland-100455","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87090:2024-12-17","opinionId":"9bd7618b-a18b-5fdf-85da-4f98a2ca814c","slug":"in-re-mid-states-materials-llc-permit-no-1236-a2-the-osage-nation-randal-d87090","caseName":"In Re Mid-States Materials, LLC Permit NO. 1236-A2; The Osage Nation; Randal S. Dobyns and Leslie R. Dobyns, Individually and as Trustees of the Dobyns Family Trust Dated October 15, 2018\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Natural Resources & Missouri Mining Commission, Mid-States Materials, LLC","caseNumber":"WD87090","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Randal and Leslie Dobyns and the Osage Nation appealed the Missouri Mining Commission's decision to grant Mid-States Materials a permit to mine limestone. Appellants argued that Mid-States's application failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements by not identifying all parties with an interest in the land. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that the application was incomplete because it failed to disclose a co-landlord and co-owner of mineral rights as identified in the lease agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215519","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mid-states-materials-llc-permit-no-1236-a2-the-osage-nation-randal-d87090","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38450:2024-12-17","opinionId":"59ebb7f5-e8e6-538d-bbe1-9c4dae07f06e","slug":"mark-edward-hood-petitioner-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-state-of-miss-d38450","caseName":"MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nDIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38450","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mark Hood challenged the Director of Revenue's administrative revocation of his driving privileges, which was issued after he refused a chemical test following a DWI arrest. The circuit court upheld the revocation, and Hood appealed, arguing the finding that he operated the vehicle was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Hood failed to employ the mandatory four-step analytical framework required for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, thus rendering his argument analytically useless.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-edward-hood-petitioner-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-state-of-miss-d38450","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112549:2024-11-26","opinionId":"36866c37-b947-5f79-a1d5-465da0318bbb","slug":"timothy-wells-appellant-v-department-of-social-services-family-support-di-112549","caseName":"Timothy Wells, Appellant, vs. Department of Social Services Family Support Division, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112549","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Wells (Father) appealed the circuit court's denial of his petition for review of an order from the Department of Social Services Family Support Division (FSD) that denied his request for administrative modification of child support. While the administrative review was pending, Father filed a judicial motion to modify his support obligations, which resulted in a judgment retroactively modifying child support. The appellate court dismissed Father's appeal as moot, concluding that the subsequent judicial modification superseded the administrative proceeding and rendered the FSD order without practical effect.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214921","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-wells-appellant-v-department-of-social-services-family-support-di-112549","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112149:2024-11-26","opinionId":"684bfcc6-dffb-5e00-b61e-24507ea6dc38","slug":"patrick-ryan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-112149","caseName":"Patrick Ryan, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112149","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patrick Ryan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability benefits. The appeal centered on whether prior enhanced permanent partial disability awards should be considered in meeting the 50-week statutory threshold and as a direct result of a compensable injury under § 287.220.3. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that enhanced PPD benefits from a prior work-related injury should be considered for both the 50-week threshold and as a direct result of a compensable injury. The case was remanded with instructions to grant Ryan PTD benefits from the Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-ryan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-112149","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87196:2024-11-19","opinionId":"bafc3e7f-b37c-5191-8505-30d237b6738c","slug":"amelia-briane-van-vickle-v-director-of-revenue-d87196","caseName":"Amelia Briane Van Vickle\nvs.\nDirector of Revenue","caseNumber":"WD87196","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Amelia Van Vickle's driving license was administratively suspended after she was involved in a single-car accident and showed signs of intoxication. The circuit court set aside the suspension, finding she was not under arrest because she was not physically restrained. The Director of Revenue appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that an injured and immobilized driver in an ambulance is considered \"actually restrained\" for the purpose of an arrest under Section 544.180, making further physical restraint by an officer unnecessary.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amelia-briane-van-vickle-v-director-of-revenue-d87196","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38424:2024-11-19","opinionId":"29ec5ccb-b564-5fc4-93f1-1ced94cbeea9","slug":"daniel-emerson-plaintiff-appellant-v-prestressed-casting-company-defendan-d38424","caseName":"DANIEL EMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nPRESTRESSED CASTING COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent \nand TREASURER OF MISSOURI, CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent/Cross-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38424","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Daniel Emerson and the Second Injury Fund appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied their motions to dismiss Prestressed Casting Company's application for review. Emerson and the Fund argued the employer's application failed to comply with regulatory specificity requirements. The Commission had modified an ALJ's award, assigning liability for permanent partial disability to the employer and permanent total disability benefits to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding the Commission did not exceed its powers by finding the employer's application for review sufficiently detailed to notify the parties of the issues.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-emerson-plaintiff-appellant-v-prestressed-casting-company-defendan-d38424","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112642:2024-11-12","opinionId":"c03e4728-a2b8-551d-9c68-54ffe52ac5ac","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-112642","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112642","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment that allowed St. Louis and St. Charles Counties to impose a retail sales tax on marijuana dispensaries in incorporated areas. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Article XIV, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which defines \"local government\" for taxing purposes. The appellate court reversed, holding that the constitutional provision unambiguously limits a county's taxing authority to unincorporated areas, while municipalities have taxing authority in incorporated areas. The court entered judgment in Robust's favor and enjoined further collection of taxes by multiple local governments.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-112642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112466:2024-11-05","opinionId":"d9443dbf-c725-5780-9c99-1b2dad2e8b01","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, MO, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112466","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, sought a conditional use permit for a convenience store, which was denied by the City of St. Louis Board of Adjustment. Double AA then filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the City's alleged practice of \"aldermanic courtesy\" as unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, concluding that a writ of certiorari under Section 89.110 was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an adequate remedy at law was available through certiorari, thus precluding the declaratory judgment action.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214277","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112331:2024-10-29","opinionId":"91d70153-3da7-5c1c-86a7-97873a37fd28","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. Mona Parsley, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, appealed the St. Louis City Board of Adjustment's denial of a conditional use permit for its convenience store. Appellant argued the Board's findings were insufficient, it acted outside its authority, its decision lacked substantial evidence, it constituted an unconstitutional taking, and Appellant was entitled to attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings sufficient, its denial supported by competent evidence, the takings claim unpreserved and meritless, and no basis for attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86895:2024-10-29","opinionId":"e17b27d1-af97-55ea-82d5-5e2e736eef06","slug":"dana-jensen-v-division-of-employment-security-d86895","caseName":"Dana Jensen\nvs.\nDivision of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD86895","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dana Jensen appealed a decision by the Division of Employment Security regarding an overpayment of unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Jensen's appeal for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed that dismissal. On appeal to the Western District, Jensen challenged the merits of the overpayment determination, but the court dismissed his appeal because he failed to challenge the Commission's decision regarding his failure to appear, thus abandoning the only issue properly before the appellate court.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213997","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-jensen-v-division-of-employment-security-d86895","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38231:2024-10-23","opinionId":"9321d1ce-f5c0-5ba2-9bb6-6d85fd2eded0","slug":"henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","caseName":"HENRY COUNTY and TANEY COUNTY, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nW. ARCHIE DUNN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38231","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Henry and Taney Counties sued W. Archie Dunn, the former Sheriff of Jasper County, seeking to hold him personally liable under §50.650 for the cost of boarding Jasper County prisoners in their jails. The Jasper County Commission had refused to pay these costs, arguing they were not budgeted. The trial court granted summary judgment against Dunn, finding him personally liable. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the plain language of §50.650, which imposes personal liability for purchasing \"supplies, materials or equipment,\" does not apply to the cost of boarding prisoners.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86613:2024-10-15","opinionId":"755bfb46-adf3-51f6-8682-8dcaa6997e9d","slug":"grain-belt-express-llc-v-chariton-county-missouri-d86613","caseName":"Grain Belt Express, L.L.C.\nvs.\nChariton County, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86613","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Grain Belt Express, L.L.C., an electrical corporation, sought a declaratory judgment against Chariton County after the County refused to grant assent for the construction of overhead transmission lines on public roads, despite MPSC approval. The circuit court ruled that Section 49.650.4 prohibited the County from regulating Grain Belt's construction. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that Section 49.650.4 does not implicitly repeal Section 229.100. The County must grant assent for the *manner* of construction to ensure road safety, but cannot withhold assent to prevent the MPSC-approved project.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/grain-belt-express-llc-v-chariton-county-missouri-d86613","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112394:2024-09-24","opinionId":"490b23d3-6efa-5ab1-bdd3-8af65346ce67","slug":"royce-jones-appellant-v-simploy-inc-and-division-of-employment-security-r-112394","caseName":"Royce Jones, Appellant, vs. Simploy, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112394","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Royce Jones appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment compensation, finding she was discharged for misconduct related to her employer's attendance policies. Jones argued that her employer interfered with her FMLA rights and that her absences were excused. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that Jones failed to provide the required FMLA documentation and that her unexcused absences constituted misconduct connected with work.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211940","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/royce-jones-appellant-v-simploy-inc-and-division-of-employment-security-r-112394","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100742:2024-09-20","opinionId":"15eebb1c-0535-50eb-b803-8e0dfeae8e89","slug":"mary-elizabeth-anne-coleman-kathleen-anne-forck-hannah-sue-kelly-and-marg-100742","caseName":"Mary Elizabeth Anne Coleman, Kathleen Anne Forck, Hannah Sue Kelly, and Marguerite Ann \"Peggy\" Forrest, Respondents, vs. John R. Ashcroft, Respondent, and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom and Anna Fitz-James, Intervenors-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100742","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-09-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Opponents challenged the Secretary of State's certification of Amendment 3 for the ballot, arguing the initiative petition failed to disclose all statutes and constitutional provisions it would repeal and violated the single-subject rule. The circuit court agreed with the disclosure claim and ordered Amendment 3 removed from the ballot. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the initiative petition complied with the constitutional and statutory form requirements, did not violate the single-subject rule, and ordered Amendment 3 placed on the 2024 general election ballot.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-elizabeth-anne-coleman-kathleen-anne-forck-hannah-sue-kelly-and-marg-100742","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38367:2024-09-10","opinionId":"66d71cc4-9207-5d79-ab49-5cc8cb2b007d","slug":"matthew-misselhorn-claimant-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-r-d38367","caseName":"MATTHEW MISSELHORN, Claimant-Appellant\nv.\nDIVISION of EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent\nand\nAEROFIL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Employer","caseNumber":"SD38367","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Matthew Misselhorn appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to deny him unemployment benefits, which found he engaged in misconduct by refusing a mandatory drug test. Misselhorn argued there was insufficient evidence that he refused the test or that the employer's policy defined refusal as a terminable offense. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's ruling, finding competent and substantial evidence supported both the existence of the policy and Misselhorn's refusal to take the drug test.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-misselhorn-claimant-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-r-d38367","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112575:2024-09-03","opinionId":"ce8a946b-11bc-54e9-b50c-f205fb5a9d41","slug":"bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","caseName":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112575","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, and Ricardo Farias Nicolopulos appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis regarding the termination of a lease agreement. The central issue was whether the Director of Airports had the authority under Ordinance 70909 to unilaterally terminate the lease. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the merits of the Director's authority, finding the ordinance's plain language granted such power. However, the court dismissed Appellants' remaining points on appeal due to noncompliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211078","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100427:2024-09-03","opinionId":"1ea74e3c-b3c8-52a7-8fa1-8e9234a96eb0","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-st-louis-county-mo-city-of-university-city-mo-c-100427","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, MO., City of University City, MO., City of Webster Groves, MO., Respondents, and Regional Justice Information Services Commission (REJIS), Defendant.","caseNumber":"SC100427","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Webster Groves and St. Louis County in his lawsuit alleging violations of Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks had requested \"raw data files\" and \"data generated from vehicle stop forms,\" including Department Serial Numbers (DSNs). The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that while electronically stored raw data can be a public record, the Sunshine Law does not require the creation of new records. The Court found that the summary judgment record was insufficient to determine whether the DSNs were responsive public records, required the creation of a new record, or were exempt from disclosure.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-st-louis-county-mo-city-of-university-city-mo-c-100427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87430:2024-09-03","opinionId":"3072aee0-bef9-56f3-a4bc-21ed2217efd1","slug":"nancy-copenhaver-v-john-r-ashcroft-et-al-d87430","caseName":"Nancy Copenhaver\nvs.\nJohn R. Ashcroft, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD87430","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nancy Copenhaver challenged the sufficiency and fairness of an official summary statement drafted by the Missouri General Assembly for Senate Joint Resolution 71 (SJR 71), which proposes to amend the Missouri Constitution regarding the levying of costs and fees to support certain law enforcement personnel. The trial court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair and rewrote it. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing with some of the trial court's findings of insufficiency but modifying the rewritten summary statement to be more limited in its revisions.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nancy-copenhaver-v-john-r-ashcroft-et-al-d87430","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112349:2024-09-03","opinionId":"f361133b-fcdd-5272-b9f1-b4500e5a53f4","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, and Joseph Brauer and Chris Pappas, Plaintiffs, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112349","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a judgment it paid on behalf of a city police officer. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling it was entitled to reimbursement. The State appealed, arguing the claim was not authorized by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that SLEF liability is triggered by the date a claim is filed, not the date of the underlying conduct, and the claim in question was filed after SLEF liability for City police officers had terminated.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111649:2024-08-20","opinionId":"b0a6f31d-4097-549a-b8a7-d3888f78c3c9","slug":"gregory-hill-bey-appellant-v-david-vandergriff-et-al-respondents-111649","caseName":"Gregory Hill-Bey, Appellant, vs. David Vandergriff, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111649","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gregory Hill-Bey, an incarcerated individual, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his petition alleging Sunshine Law violations against the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correction Center. The circuit court dismissed the petition because Hill-Bey failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by Missouri's Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hill-Bey did not plead or show exhaustion of administrative remedies for his specific Sunshine Law claim, and that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to Sunshine Law claims, which are not constitutional claims.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-hill-bey-appellant-v-david-vandergriff-et-al-respondents-111649","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112285:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c641001c-4066-5926-a28c-f1d34a564332","slug":"claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","caseName":"Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Patricia Thibeault, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112285","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Claymont Development, LLC, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the City of Wildwood regarding development moratoria and to compel the issuance of development permits for a residential subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that Claymont's claims were moot because the challenged moratoria had expired or been repealed, and the development plan had changed without proper resubmission, making it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210478","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112132:2024-07-30","opinionId":"294ab0eb-0134-52d6-b03f-d9feec734d8a","slug":"james-eckardt-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-112132","caseName":"James Eckardt, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112132","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Claimant James Eckardt appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of Second Injury Fund benefits for his permanent total disability from multiple work injuries. The Fund cross-appealed the inclusion of his occupational disease in the award. The appellate court reversed the denial of Fund benefits, finding the Commission erred by misinterpreting the relevant statute and precedent regarding non-qualifying disabilities. The court affirmed the Commission's determination that occupational diseases, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome, qualify as preexisting compensable injuries under the Second Injury Fund statute.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-eckardt-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-112132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112026:2024-07-23","opinionId":"08a11b7c-b656-5ec9-af74-635aee70853d","slug":"dawnette-geen-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-mental-health-respondent-112026","caseName":"Dawnette Geen, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Mental Health, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112026","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dawnette Geen, an in-home caregiver, appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Missouri Department of Mental Health's decision to place her on a disqualification registry for two years due to alleged physical abuse of a consumer. The appellate court reversed, finding DMH's decision arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because it failed to establish an objective standard of care to measure what force was reasonable in the circumstances. The court ordered DMH to rescind its findings of physical abuse and remove Geen from the disqualification registry.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","other","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dawnette-geen-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-mental-health-respondent-112026","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112215:2024-07-16","opinionId":"6b1a8664-bb93-540d-8ec1-a547db807d93","slug":"1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","caseName":"1123 Washington Avenue Retail Condo, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112215","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Property owners within the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, which barred their claim seeking refunds for special assessments. The property owners argued they were not collaterally estopped from challenging the assessments as unlawful taxes under the Refund Statute. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the property owners' claim was time-barred by the more specific statute of limitations in the CID Act, rather than the general Refund Statute.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-209473","opinionId":"dac0d043-df61-578b-8cab-0b95cb4bf188","slug":"dennis-r-di-ricco-golden-genesis-inc-dba-nuplasma-thomas-f-casey-v-missou-d86327","caseName":"Dennis R. Di Ricco; Golden Genesis, INC. d/b/a Nuplasma; Thomas F. Casey\nvs.\nMissouri Commissioner of Securities, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86327","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-07-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Missouri Commissioner of Securities found Golden Genesis, Inc., Thomas Casey, and Dennis Di Ricco liable for violations of the Missouri Securities Act of 2003. The circuit court upheld the Commissioner's order, and the appellants appealed. The appellate court reversed the Commissioner's order as to Di Ricco, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over him. However, the court affirmed the order with respect to Golden Genesis and Casey, concluding that personal jurisdiction existed and the promissory notes at issue constituted \"securities\" under the Act.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dennis-r-di-ricco-golden-genesis-inc-dba-nuplasma-thomas-f-casey-v-missou-d86327","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87195:2024-07-02","opinionId":"2b749fe2-f496-5a91-896b-4a664f33ee7c","slug":"vernon-county-republican-committee-by-and-through-cyndia-haggard-chairman-d87195","caseName":"Vernon County Republican Committee, by and through Cyndia Haggard, Chairman\nvs. \nAdrienne Lee, Vernon County Clerk","caseNumber":"WD87195","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Vernon County Clerk appealed a circuit court's judgment granting a permanent writ of mandamus, which ordered that eight candidates not be placed on the August 2024 primary election ballot as Republican candidates. The circuit court found the County Clerk failed to perform a statutory ministerial duty by accepting declarations of candidacy without a receipt from the Vernon County Republican Committee. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, concluding that the statutory deadline for modifying ballots had passed, making it impossible to grant effectual relief. The court also determined that the public interest exception to mootness did not apply.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vernon-county-republican-committee-by-and-through-cyndia-haggard-chairman-d87195","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100076:2024-06-25","opinionId":"9d2c5261-12a0-5cc6-95ac-3c8a643e0e48","slug":"laura-salamun-et-al-appellants-v-the-camden-county-clerk-et-al-respondent-100076","caseName":"Laura Salamun, et al., Appellants, v. The Camden County Clerk, et al., Respondents; and Gail Griswold, et al., Appellants, v. Miller County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100076","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gail Griswold, Shawnee Bluff Winery, Laura Salamun, and Pointe View Management (Challengers) appealed judgments that declared section 67.1175.1 of the Missouri Revised Statutes unconstitutional. The Challengers argued that this section, when read with section 67.1177, mandated political subdivisions to grant public money to a private entity, violating the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court had attempted to cure this by modifying the statute. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that even with the modification, the statutory scheme still unconstitutionally required public money to be granted to a private entity. The Court further concluded that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the rest of the scheme, striking down sections 67.1170, 67.1175, 67.1177, and 67.1180 in their entirety, and remanded for the dissolution of the lake area business districts.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209190","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/laura-salamun-et-al-appellants-v-the-camden-county-clerk-et-al-respondent-100076","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111992:2024-06-25","opinionId":"dead6c79-c8de-5b40-b197-466e8201ffbe","slug":"jamie-marx-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111992","caseName":"Jamie Marx, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111992","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jamie Marx appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming the Division of Employment Security's denial of his petition for reassessment of unemployment benefits. Marx had previously been found ineligible for benefits and overpaid, but his appeals of those initial determinations were untimely, making them final. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it was supported by competent and substantial evidence that the assessment was properly made and calculated, and that Marx was properly served with notice.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209178","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-marx-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111992","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111924:2024-06-18","opinionId":"a506e6a1-d2da-5d76-89e0-5c41f6634990","slug":"jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","caseName":"Jeanette Layton, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111924","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jeanette Layton sued Mercy Hospital East Communities and other entities, alleging age discrimination in employment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employers, finding them exempt from MHRA liability as corporations \"owned or operated\" by a religious organization. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employers were indeed operated by a religious organization as a matter of undisputed fact, and that the employers complied with Supreme Court Rule 74.04 regarding summary judgment procedures.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111406:2024-06-11","opinionId":"92f47e34-f69c-52d7-b1c3-9180ae29eea0","slug":"lfa-respondent-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-criminal-records-repositor-111406","caseName":"L.F.A., Respondent, vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol, Criminal Records Repository, Appellant, and Lt. Col. Gregory, Acting Chief of Police, St. Louis County Police Department, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111406","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"L.F.A. sought removal from the Missouri sex offender registry, which the circuit court granted. The Missouri State Highway Patrol appealed this judgment. During the pendency of the appeal, a separate circuit court judgment in another case involving L.F.A. determined he was barred from removal from the registry. The appellate court reversed the initial judgment and remanded with instructions to deny L.F.A.'s petition, concluding that the unappealed subsequent judgment precluded his removal, consistent with the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling in *Smith v. St. Louis County Police*.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure","criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lfa-respondent-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-criminal-records-repositor-111406","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111989:2024-06-11","opinionId":"76f3be14-38ca-58e3-9d6d-c83099b56dba","slug":"christine-m-kohlberg-respondent-v-big-bend-orthodontics-llc-appellant-and-111989","caseName":"Christine M. Kohlberg, Respondent, vs. Big Bend Orthodontics, LLC, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111989","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Big Bend Orthodontics, LLC (Employer) appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award unemployment benefits to Christine M. Kohlberg. The Employer argued the Commission erred by not granting a rehearing, claiming good cause for failing to appear at the Appeals Tribunal hearing because its counsel did not receive notice. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Division of Employment Security provided proper notice to the Employer, and the Employer's failure to act on that notice did not constitute good cause for its non-appearance.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208898","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-m-kohlberg-respondent-v-big-bend-orthodontics-llc-appellant-and-111989","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111790:2024-06-11","opinionId":"099824b0-9505-548a-b476-8eece803478a","slug":"samantha-b-bourne-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111790","caseName":"Samantha B. Bourne, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111790","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Samantha B. Bourne appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of unemployment benefits, arguing that improper notice from the Division of Employment Security violated her due process rights by leading to the dismissal of her appeals as untimely. The Commission, however, had treated her appeals as timely and denied them on the merits, finding she was disqualified from benefits because she was not unemployed. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, denying Bourne's points on appeal because the Commission did not find her appeals untimely and her due process argument was unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samantha-b-bourne-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111790","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-208853","opinionId":"29681634-6aea-531a-a50e-b3640df1962a","slug":"joshua-m-krasovec-v-kc-board-of-police-comm-et-al-police-retirement-syste-d85910","caseName":"Joshua M. Krasovec\nvs.\nKC Board of Police Comm., Et al., Police Retirement System of Kansas City","caseNumber":"WD85910","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joshua Krasovec appealed the circuit court's judgment concerning his disability retirement from the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. The circuit court found the KC Board of Police Commissioners and the Police Retirement System of Kansas City unlawfully retired Krasovec without proper medical board certification. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's finding that the retirement was unlawful but modified the judgment to remand the case to the Respondents to conduct the disability evaluation process lawfully, as the circuit court had erred by failing to provide a remedy.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-m-krasovec-v-kc-board-of-police-comm-et-al-police-retirement-syste-d85910","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100352:2024-06-04","opinionId":"a903968e-7d3d-59eb-892b-3b5dce03917c","slug":"state-ex-rel-governor-michael-l-parson-relator-v-the-honorable-cotton-wal-100352","caseName":"State ex rel. Governor Michael L. Parson, Relator, v. The Honorable Cotton Walker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100352","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Marcellus Williams filed a declaratory judgment action challenging Governor Parson's rescission of a prior executive order that stayed Williams' execution and appointed a board of inquiry. The circuit court denied the Governor's motion for judgment on the pleadings, prompting the Governor to seek a writ of prohibition. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Governor possesses exclusive constitutional authority over clemency, and Williams has no statutory or due process right to the board of inquiry process.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-governor-michael-l-parson-relator-v-the-honorable-cotton-wal-100352","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86677:2024-05-28","opinionId":"4664b051-322d-53c6-9573-150ce7c4ac01","slug":"tammy-walsh-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d86677","caseName":"Tammy Walsh\nvs.\nMissouri State Board of Nursing","caseNumber":"WD86677","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tammy Walsh, a licensed nurse, appealed an order from the Missouri State Board of Nursing that extended her probation for four years due to multiple violations of her initial disciplinary order, which stemmed from diverting and using medication. Walsh argued the additional discipline was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by evidence of chemical dependency. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's action was supported by substantial evidence of probation violations and was within its statutory authority and discretion.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tammy-walsh-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d86677","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-208475","opinionId":"e7257e79-cb01-540d-8f5b-0822eed0214b","slug":"mark-boles-et-al-respondentcross-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-appel-111495","caseName":"Mark Boles, et al., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, et al., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nonresident employees challenged the City of St. Louis's earnings tax on income earned from remote work performed outside the city. The trial court partially granted summary judgment for the employees, finding remote work not taxable, and partially for the City on a Hancock Amendment claim, while dismissing class action claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the earnings tax ordinance does not apply to work done remotely outside the City and upholding the dismissal of class action claims and the denial of attorneys' fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-boles-et-al-respondentcross-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-appel-111495","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112119:2024-05-28","opinionId":"5c364f92-555d-5dda-b583-0e922c8a86f8","slug":"cheryl-dickerman-appellant-v-amazoncom-inc-and-division-of-employment-sec-112119","caseName":"Cheryl Dickerman, Appellant, vs. Amazon.com, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112119","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Cheryl Dickerman quit her job at Amazon due to COVID-19 concerns and was later disqualified from unemployment benefits and notified of an overpayment. Her letter appealing the overpayment was treated by the Appeals Tribunal as an untimely appeal of the disqualification, and the Commission dismissed her subsequent application for review as untimely. The appellate court reversed, finding that while there was sufficient evidence Dickerman received notice of the dismissal, the Appeals Tribunal erred in misinterpreting her letter as an appeal of the disqualification rather than the overpayment decision. The case was remanded for a decision on the merits of the overpayment appeal.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cheryl-dickerman-appellant-v-amazoncom-inc-and-division-of-employment-sec-112119","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-208380","opinionId":"882d90d7-7fc2-5cf3-9e30-1ba1694e861c","slug":"torch-electronics-llc-et-al-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-et-al-d86610","caseName":"Torch Electronics, LLC, Et al.\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Public Safety, Et al.; Missouri Gaming Association","caseNumber":"WD86610","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Torch Electronics and Warrenton Oil Co. sought a declaratory judgment that their gaming devices were not illegal gambling devices under section 572.010, RSMo, and an injunction against the Highway Patrol from seizing them. The Missouri Gaming Association intervened, seeking a declaration that the devices were illegal. The trial court dismissed all claims, finding that Missouri courts generally lack authority to provide equitable relief relating to criminal statutes without a challenge to the statute's constitutionality or validity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissals, agreeing that no such challenge was raised by any party.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208380","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/torch-electronics-llc-et-al-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-et-al-d86610","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38016:2024-05-07","opinionId":"6019ef3d-0f49-5460-80ab-394eab5ba884","slug":"david-casey-claimant-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-d38016","caseName":"DAVID CASEY, Claimant-Appellant\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE TREASURER as CUSTODIAN of the SECOND INJURY FUND, Additional Party-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38016","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Casey appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which reversed an Administrative Law Judge's award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund (SIF). Casey argued the Commission erred in denying PTD benefits by misinterpreting the 50-week threshold for combining preexisting disabilities and by failing to consider expert opinions. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's denial, finding that the issue of combining multiple disabilities was moot because one preexisting disability met the 50-week threshold, and upholding the Commission's credibility determination regarding the combination of the qualifying right-knee disability and the primary injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-casey-claimant-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-d38016","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}