{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"appellate-procedure","label":"Appellate Procedure","description":null,"totalCases":3586,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},"trend":[{"year":2014,"count":1},{"year":2018,"count":312},{"year":2019,"count":447},{"year":2020,"count":458},{"year":2021,"count":413},{"year":2022,"count":355},{"year":2023,"count":445},{"year":2024,"count":574},{"year":2025,"count":492},{"year":2026,"count":89}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38930:2026-03-12","opinionId":"b24b5946-b852-57a0-bf07-7965aa7af496","slug":"paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","caseName":"PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents\nv.\nWAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38930","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87987:2026-03-10","opinionId":"a8ee5891-ab55-58e3-98e0-42e18c2cbd32","slug":"ljf-v-jfg-d87987","caseName":"L.J.F.\nvs.\nJ.F.G.","caseNumber":"WD87987","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Father appealed a circuit court judgment renewing a full order of protection against him for Mother, effective for his lifetime. Father contended the evidence was insufficient to justify renewal and that the judgment lacked sufficient findings for a lifetime order. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of stalking to warrant renewal and concluding that Father failed to preserve his claim regarding the sufficiency of findings for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ljf-v-jfg-d87987","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":"moappd:ed113080:2026-03-10","opinionId":"9a1eb16d-5471-53da-b68b-9ea0ef8cdc59","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113080","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87720:2026-03-03","opinionId":"e0998356-8d04-5a61-9bed-d11d787fb2db","slug":"kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","caseName":"Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm\nvs.\nGregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust","caseNumber":"WD87720","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gregory Stiens, individually and as trustee, appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims, and against Stiens's counterclaims. Stiens challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the property description in the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all points of error raised by Stiens regarding the trial proceedings and outcomes. However, the court remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the judgment to include proper legal descriptions of the disputed property awarded to the Rosenbohms.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","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:sc101121:2026-02-24","opinionId":"1179f428-c8b5-526a-9ec3-046c64e80091","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","caseName":"In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101121","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights for minor children A.L.P. and S.H.P. after Lora Martinez, the children's adoptive parent, was granted parental rights in a separate adoption proceeding. The circuit court granted Smith visitation, and Martinez appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 452.375.5(5)(a) does not create an independent cause of action for third-party custody or visitation when custody is not already at issue in an underlying proceeding, such as a divorce or paternity action. Consequently, Smith's claim for visitation and her subsequent family access motion failed.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"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:wd87485:2026-02-24","opinionId":"53f50252-917c-5803-bde2-1ddc31e44d0a","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","caseName":"In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble\nvs. \nBradford R. Noble","caseNumber":"WD87485","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Stacey L. Noble appealed the trial court's amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Bradford R. Noble, challenging the denial of maintenance and an alleged judicial impropriety. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found no judicial impropriety in the trial court's use of an online calculator for judicially noticeable tax rates. The court also affirmed the denial of maintenance, concluding that Husband lacked the ability to pay regardless of the income calculation method, and that maintenance is not mandatory if the paying spouse cannot afford it.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"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:ed113602:2026-02-24","opinionId":"42131c82-98bc-58fc-8c38-ad998c0cdaad","slug":"kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","caseName":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED113602","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart appealed the dismissal of her claims against Washington University for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding Torre-Stewart failed to plead facts demonstrating a legal disability or sufficient harassment. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, concluding that Torre-Stewart adequately pleaded facts to establish its elements, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","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:ed113261:2026-02-17","opinionId":"d93ee86c-ba6f-5fc9-937d-0965c6252917","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113261","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231041","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"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":"moappd:ed113172:2026-02-17","opinionId":"ca60c553-a3e7-54bd-8b3f-141be5118385","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113172","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Elizabeth M. Speer appealed her convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and did not obtain a written waiver of counsel. The State conceded error on both points. The appellate court reversed Speer's convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment and Section 600.051.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231038","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","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:ed113141:2026-02-10","opinionId":"63188eef-feae-5cf6-bb09-a1f9fba94b76","slug":"mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","caseName":"M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant M.D.M. (Father) appealed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, raising six points of error concerning the Form 14 income calculation, Line 11 credit, allocation of guardian ad litem and attorney's fees, and the abatement of child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that Father's failure to preserve issues for appeal subjected all points to plain error review. The court found no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the circuit court's rulings, including its denial of a Line 11 credit due to Father's non-exercise of visitation and its fee awards.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"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:ed113255:2026-02-10","opinionId":"c07b96f9-e129-5551-baaf-1204638e366b","slug":"derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","caseName":"Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113255","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow him to testify and for failing to investigate and call two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous regarding both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113233:2026-02-10","opinionId":"e4a57fae-8094-567f-863a-75f192cf3669","slug":"daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","caseName":"Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Daniel Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state. Williams contended that such an investigation could have revealed mental health issues relevant to a diminished capacity defense. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams failed to demonstrate how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113073:2026-02-03","opinionId":"555ef382-cca7-5f10-96c2-654114bfe75d","slug":"arthur-f-daume-jr-and-gayle-c-daume-appellants-v-thomas-szepanksi-et-al-r-113073","caseName":"Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113073","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Arthur and Gayle Daume appealed the trial court's interpretation of a deeded easement for ingress and egress over their neighbors' private roadway. The trial court had construed the easement's \"non-commercial purposes\" limitation to prohibit agricultural use and restricted its scope to the Daumes and their immediate family. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that \"non-commercial\" does not categorically prohibit agricultural use unless for profit, and that the appurtenant easement allows the Daumes to authorize third parties for non-commercial ingress and egress.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arthur-f-daume-jr-and-gayle-c-daume-appellants-v-thomas-szepanksi-et-al-r-113073","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"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":"moappsd:sd38798:2026-02-03","opinionId":"61e9a65d-bab3-54ea-8990-671bdf26d4a8","slug":"carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","caseName":"CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38798","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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: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:sc100874:2026-01-13","opinionId":"256384ec-b1e1-5cf5-b792-4e5a34a6cf1f","slug":"craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","caseName":"Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100874","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229859","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:ed113257:2026-01-13","opinionId":"54f308ed-bb84-5c41-b22f-2389f0293b73","slug":"harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","caseName":"Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113257","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:ed112791:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2844b7d2-d205-5b01-b723-faea0d5c391b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112791","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:sc101132:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2cc3eae6-13d6-5765-9da3-8c9144b3cbba","slug":"state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","caseName":"State ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, vs. The Honorable Craig Hellmann, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101132","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court dismissed a felony DWI charge against Richard James Johnson, who was charged as a persistent offender. The circuit court found the persistent offender statute, section 577.023.2, facially unconstitutional for violating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by requiring a judge, not a jury, to find predicate facts for sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the statute is not facially unconstitutional because existing procedural rules, such as Rule 27.02(s) and MAI-CR 4th 405.01, provide a mechanism for a jury to make the necessary findings. Therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the charge.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229862","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113623:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0c7856e5-fe4a-527c-9cbb-ec2721a9a0a4","slug":"gamez-v-easyex-mo-ofallon-ed113623","caseName":"Celestina Gamez, Respondent, v. EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113623","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"EasyEx MO Ofallon, LLC appealed the circuit court's judgment denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in a suit brought by its former employee, Celestina Gamez, for violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that EasyEx failed to file its motion to set aside the default judgment within the one-year time limit prescribed by Rule 74.05(d). The court also granted Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal as a prevailing party under the MHRA and remanded the case for a determination of reasonable fees.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gamez-v-easyex-mo-ofallon-ed113623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"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:ed113160:2026-01-06","opinionId":"d1349662-a11d-505d-8895-714e94b61f5d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Robinson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113160","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-06","year":2026,"display_summary":"Dustin Robinson appealed his conviction for felony resisting arrest, arguing that resisting arrest on an outstanding felony warrant should be classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, under section 575.150.5(1) RSMo. Robinson contended that only warrantless arrests for a felony, or arrests on warrants for failure to appear or probation violations in felony cases, could support a felony resisting arrest charge. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that an arrest made pursuant to a warrant for a felony offense is still considered an arrest \"for a felony\" under the statute, regardless of whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","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":"moappd:ed113150:2025-12-30","opinionId":"a22c9abc-e1e5-59d3-b995-3fab89f37e3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113150","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87907:2025-12-30","opinionId":"fc1dfff2-c708-53f2-a95d-e5b80647fa35","slug":"in-the-interest-of-bwr-juvenile-pwr-jr-v-juvenile-officer-d87907","caseName":"In the Interest of: B.W.R., Juvenile P.W.R., Jr. \nvs. \nJuvenile Officer","caseNumber":"WD87907","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"P.W.R., Jr. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to B.W.R. (Son), arguing the trial court failed to make required statutory findings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that Father's claim of error, which pertained to the form or language of the judgment, was not preserved for appellate review because he failed to file a motion to amend the judgment as mandated by Rule 78.07(c).","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230714","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-bwr-juvenile-pwr-jr-v-juvenile-officer-d87907","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":"mo:sc101104:2025-12-29","opinionId":"25d92d9f-5bb6-59eb-9ab7-b082f2ebb7a0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isis S. Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101104","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Isis S. Jones was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial. On appeal, Jones argued the circuit court plainly erred by accepting a jury verdict based on an instruction that varied from the charged offense, leading to an improper sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Jones failed to establish that the alleged error was \"facially evident, obvious, and clear,\" as shooting \"into\" a vehicle necessarily subsumes shooting \"at\" it.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:sc101071:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d2463849-d8a6-5968-94f1-7a1562f12608","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard Neil Burkett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101071","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Neil Burkett was convicted of first-degree assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Burkett contended the circuit court erred by not submitting a self-defense instruction and by not giving a curative instruction regarding the State's closing argument. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to review Burkett's unpreserved claims for plain error because he caused or contributed to the alleged errors and his claims were ill-suited for plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","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":"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":"moappd:ed112946:2025-12-23","opinionId":"f5e1bb3c-8dbc-59cc-a360-505566d214ea","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Emonne W. Dillon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112946","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Emonne Dillon appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred during a brawl. Dillon argued the trial court erred by refusing his non-MAI instructions on imperfect self-defense, denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, and admitting hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, juror selection, or the admission of the challenged statement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113270:2025-12-23","opinionId":"b406b9d9-152b-50a7-a051-75ed7c87c014","slug":"karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","caseName":"Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113270","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Karla Allsberry, a former circuit clerk, sued Judge Patrick Flynn and his secretary Kathy Hall for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Circuit Court of Lincoln County (CCLC) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment on defamation, directed verdicts on the MHRA claims, and a jury verdict for Flynn on IIED. The appellate court affirmed all judgments, finding no evidence of actual malice for defamation, that the State of Missouri (not CCLC) was Allsberry's employer for MHRA purposes, and that the jury instruction on IIED's \"sole purpose\" element was a correct statement of law. It also found Allsberry's claims of trial error regarding attorney misconduct were not preserved.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229238","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112275:2025-12-23","opinionId":"c9202e6b-6d0f-55f7-a21d-8caa8ab2e623","slug":"demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","caseName":"Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112275","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Demetrius L. Davis appealed the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The State argued the motion court erred in reviewing Davis's untimely amended motion after finding he was abandoned by unappointed post-conviction counsel. The appellate court agreed, holding that the abandonment doctrine applies only to appointed counsel, not counsel who voluntarily entered an appearance. Therefore, the motion court lacked authority to review the untimely amended motion and should have only reviewed the timely filed pro se motion. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment, and the case was remanded for adjudication of the pro se claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:ed112762:2025-12-16","opinionId":"c92b5cc2-c426-5520-b878-4f2e407256c4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112762","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","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:wd87646:2025-12-16","opinionId":"719ec01b-065b-5e87-93ba-ae7c84d1d7fb","slug":"cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","caseName":"Cody Joseph Enderle, Guardian of the Person of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, an Incapacitated Person, and Conservator of the Estate of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, a Disabled Person\nvs.","caseNumber":"WD87646","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Enderle, as guardian and conservator for his father Charles Enderle, sued Richard Gercken and Gercken Kelsey L.L.C. to void a real estate transaction, alleging Charles lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced, and the terms were unconscionable. The circuit court directed a verdict on the undue influence claim, a jury found Charles had contractual capacity, and the court ruled against unconscionability and granted Gercken's counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions, or the court's rulings on unconscionability and evidence.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228569","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","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":"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":"moappwd:parent-228554","opinionId":"8c9979e1-e1a5-54e6-9904-c02f6476754c","slug":"mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","caseName":"Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin\nvs.\nCity of Kearney, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin sued the City of Kearney for inverse condemnation, alleging soil erosion in their backyards due to the City's stormwater drainage system. The circuit court granted a directed verdict against Laughlin, finding no notice to the City of erosion on his property, but a jury found for the Davises and Kamms. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that Laughlin failed to prove notice, and that the Davises and Kamms properly sought damages for a partial taking, not a total taking, which was supported by the evidence. The court also affirmed its appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments regarding judgment finality and timely appeal.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","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":"moappd:ed113332:2025-12-16","opinionId":"6f1fe533-be87-5313-8219-e26b84d52c66","slug":"sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","caseName":"S.C., Respondent, vs. Gabe Gore, City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Chief Robert J. Tracy, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chief of Police, Defendants, Colonel Michael Turner, Superintendent Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113332","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.C., who had previously pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor in Indiana, registered with Missouri's sex offender registry after moving to the state. He later filed a petition seeking a declaration of exemption from the registry and an order for removal of his name. The trial court granted his petition, finding him exempt and ordering removal. The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol appealed, arguing S.C. was not exempt and that removal was beyond the court's statutory authority. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that S.C.'s Indiana crimes did not meet Missouri's child abuse criteria for mandatory registration, and that an exempt person could have their name removed from the registry.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","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:ed113083:2025-12-16","opinionId":"15acb59f-1b95-52c5-b957-1c5d4d0f7c0a","slug":"billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","caseName":"Billy Wagner, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113083","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Billy Wagner appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had applied the incorrect version of Rule 29.15(g) to determine the deadline for filing an amended motion and failed to adjudicate all claims in Wagner's pro se motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at sentencing governs and that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228697","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87887:2025-12-16","opinionId":"09fd7f9b-a2be-5246-b8a4-7480de898839","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.H., K.H., T.H., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nJ.M.S.","caseNumber":"WD87887","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother J.M.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her three children, J.M.H., K.M.H., and T.M.H., by the Jackson County Circuit Court. The trial court based its decision on findings of abuse and neglect, and parental unfitness, concluding termination was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Mother committed severe and recurrent physical abuse, and that termination was in the children's best interest.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228558","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","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"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113541:2025-12-16","opinionId":"7834a848-f522-5be5-aa46-751d81a5a07d","slug":"vance-clark-appellant-v-benjamin-aranda-respondent-113541","caseName":"Vance Clark, Appellant, v. Benjamin Aranda, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113541","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Vance Clark appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing his petition against Benjamin Aranda for failure to state a claim. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Clark, who represented himself, failed to substantially comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04 of the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, his brief contained a deficient statement of facts and improperly structured points relied on, which prevented the court from conducting a meaningful review without acting as his advocate.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228700","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vance-clark-appellant-v-benjamin-aranda-respondent-113541","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":"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:ed113152:2025-12-09","opinionId":"d092a53b-584d-50a5-959e-ec010888ed53","slug":"in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","caseName":"In the interest of:  W.M.H.","caseNumber":"ED113152","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"W.M.H. appealed the juvenile court's judgment committing him to the Division of Youth Services after he was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree tampering and possession of a controlled substance. W.M.H. argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he purposely or knowingly rode unlawfully in another's automobile. The appellate court reversed the adjudication for second-degree tampering, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite mental state, but affirmed the judgment otherwise.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","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:ed113445:2025-12-09","opinionId":"9b461770-6889-5529-ac52-e5b05b65f663","slug":"collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","caseName":"Collector of Revenue, et al., Respondents, v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, Defendant, Roland Hill, Jr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113445","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Roland Hill, Jr. appealed the trial court's judgment confirming a sheriff's sale of a property due to delinquent tax liens. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Hill's notice of appeal was untimely filed beyond the twenty-day statutory deadline set by section 92.845. The court held that this statutory timeframe controls over the general forty-day period in the Rules of Civil Procedure and that it lacked authority to grant leave for a late appeal as the six-month window had expired.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228380","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","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:ed112921:2025-12-09","opinionId":"32d73aa0-fa8c-5b56-afba-55f4636e3939","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Preston Gremminger, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112921","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed112852:2025-12-02","opinionId":"d8b3ac30-ce1e-5d04-ba28-500b212e2638","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112852","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:ed113203:2025-12-02","opinionId":"fa56099d-4a94-5146-b13a-49353cbd613d","slug":"barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","caseName":"Barry E. Anderson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113203","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Barry E. Anderson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court had found abandonment by counsel and reviewed his untimely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the amended motion was untimely because the abandonment doctrine does not apply to unappointed counsel, and the motion court's post hoc appointment was invalid. However, the court affirmed the judgment because all claims in Anderson's timely pro se motion had been properly adjudicated.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87623:2025-11-25","opinionId":"a6fbf8c5-39bc-5052-b22c-d11532a2ba1c","slug":"connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","caseName":"Connie Haworth\nvs.\nGuest Services, Inc., et al.","caseNumber":"WD87623","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Connie Haworth, a former employee, sued Guest Services, Inc., St. Anthony's, LLC, and Mark Ledom for various claims. The Appellants moved to compel arbitration, arguing a binding arbitration agreement existed, but the trial court denied their motions, finding a lack of mutual assent. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the trial court's factual finding that the parties did not mutually assent to the arbitration agreement, and concluding that an adequate evidentiary hearing had been conducted.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","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":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":"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":"moappd:ed112740:2025-11-25","opinionId":"5a3869a8-829e-5e14-ba70-6626baa67b92","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112740","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","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:parent-227575","opinionId":"c5fb9de8-d068-5957-a5d1-ade56c385872","slug":"in-the-matter-of-lauren-micaela-taylor-113222","caseName":"In the matter of:  Lauren Micaela Taylor.","caseNumber":"ED113222","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lauren Taylor and her mother appealed the St. Charles County Probate Court's denial of their motions to set aside thirteen orders from a Georgia Probate Court and to reopen a terminated guardianship and conservatorship case. The Probate Court had denied the motions for lack of jurisdiction, finding the underlying case was terminated. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Probate Commissioner's orders denying the motions were not timely confirmed by a judge as required by Missouri law, thus no final appealable judgment existed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227575","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-lauren-micaela-taylor-113222","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:wd87821:2025-11-18","opinionId":"82a8e8fd-986a-5a8a-b15d-593102ec0f28","slug":"in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","caseName":"In the Matter of Edward L. Eisenstein, Deceased \nMargaret Delacy\nvs.\nWorld Wildlife Fund, Missouri Botanical Garden, Cousteau Society, The Nature Conservancy, and Ecohealth Alliance, Inc., Successor-In-Interest to Wildlife Preservation Trust International","caseNumber":"WD87821","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Margaret DeLacy, Decedent's sister and only heir-at-law, was appointed personal representative of Edward L. Eisenstein's intestate estate. Appellants, five organizations named as beneficiaries in a purported will, challenged this appointment and the probate court's finding that the will was untimely presented. The probate court ruled the will was a legal nullity due to late presentation under section 473.050, RSMo, and declined to remove DeLacy. The appellate court affirmed, finding DeLacy's initial application for letters complied with statutory requirements, triggering the six-month limitations period, and that no abuse of discretion occurred in her appointment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","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":"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":"moappd:ed113519:2025-11-18","opinionId":"1af34110-b3fd-594f-89ac-0b1753b5213d","slug":"oak-ridge-property-management-llc-et-al-appellants-v-robert-p-greene-et-a-113519","caseName":"Oak Ridge Property Management, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Robert P. Greene, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113519","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellants Oak Ridge Property Management, LLC, and WCMD, LLC, appealed an order granting sanctions against them. They argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they filed a voluntary dismissal, and that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction, finding the initial dismissal ineffective due to improper signature and that an amended dismissal could not relate back. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the merits of the sanctions order, holding that an order for sanctions is not a final, appealable judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227577","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/oak-ridge-property-management-llc-et-al-appellants-v-robert-p-greene-et-a-113519","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":26,"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":"moappwd:wd87377:2025-11-12","opinionId":"5a507ea8-23e6-57a7-abb8-fc794484cd3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJonathan Edward Rainey","caseNumber":"WD87377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jonathan Rainey appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the protective search of Rainey's person and vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, thus the evidence was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113032:2025-11-12","opinionId":"f739e9e2-6aab-5119-88b0-aa2027f75f85","slug":"david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","caseName":"David O. Love, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113032","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Love appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for making gang references during voir dire, failing to include a limiting instruction for prior bad acts in jury instructions, and failing to quash the jury panel due to a fair cross-section violation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that while his amended motion was untimely and counsel abandoned him, remand was unnecessary, and Love failed to prove his ineffective assistance claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87238:2025-11-12","opinionId":"22b45ab0-334e-527f-b0ac-1c651aed4fe5","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nPatrick Logan Pulse","caseNumber":"WD87238","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Patrick Logan Pulse appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, stemming from shooting a Lyft driver, arguing self-defense at trial. On appeal, Pulse challenged the admission of three pieces of evidence: a video of his arrest, a video of him in a police car post-arrest, and his hospital records showing controlled substances. He also claimed instructional error for the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defense of others. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to Pulse's claims of error regarding evidence admission or instructional error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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: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":"mo:sc100942:2025-11-04","opinionId":"81e5ae2a-ec38-512c-83e2-39edb0457357","slug":"diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","caseName":"Diana Maune, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Neil J. Maune, Respondent, vs. Marcus Raichle, Jr. and the Maune Raichle Law Firm, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100942","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Marcus Raichle and the Maune Raichle Law Firm appealed the circuit court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against the Estate of Neil J. Maune. The dispute arose from the distribution of life insurance proceeds after Neil Maune's death, with the Estate claiming the funds should have gone to a different entity. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that under Missouri's aggregate theory of partnerships, Maune and Raichle's individual signatures on the operating agreement bound their general partnership to arbitrate. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to sustain the motion to compel arbitration, deferring questions of arbitration scope to the arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":32,"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":"moappwd:wd86817:2025-11-04","opinionId":"cff59d62-7a7a-579f-8b51-8dea598a1dd9","slug":"savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","caseName":"Savannah Radmer\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86817","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Savannah Radmer appealed a judgment awarding her damages and attorney fees from her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, on claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. She challenged the reduction of her damages award and the constitutionality of a damages cap. MDOC cross-appealed several issues, including jury instructions and punitive damages. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals, concluding that the circuit court's judgment was not final due to its failure to rule on Radmer's requests for prejudgment interest and equitable relief.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","employment-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","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:sc100967:2025-11-04","opinionId":"94298e62-47a0-5106-8990-dd89cddc7d96","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100967","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's order sustaining Amanda Mire's motion to suppress certain statements and evidence in a driving while intoxicated case. The circuit court initially made a docket entry on February 26, 2024, suppressing the evidence, and later entered a more formal \"judgment and order\" on March 11, 2024. The State filed its notice of appeal on March 11, 2024. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the February 26 docket entry was the operative order, and the State failed to file its notice of appeal within the statutory five-day period from that date.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113495:2025-10-28","opinionId":"c5c6db70-b9f6-577f-931e-6b4cc150d829","slug":"mary-a-cook-and-the-william-edward-cook-and-mary-ann-cook-trust-responden-113495","caseName":"Mary A. Cook, and the William Edward Cook and Mary Ann Cook Trust, Respondents, v. Glenn Sykes, d/b/a Sykes Hauling and Tree Service, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary A. Cook obtained a default judgment against Glenn Sykes for breach of contract, fraud, and a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violation after Sykes failed to complete tree services. Sykes appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to set aside the default judgment and quash execution, arguing the judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that service of process was proper and the default judgment was not void, thus rendering Sykes's motions time-barred or without merit.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226796","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-a-cook-and-the-william-edward-cook-and-mary-ann-cook-trust-responden-113495","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":"moappwd:wd87231:2025-10-28","opinionId":"11cba625-1bca-5240-bdbe-61ddaa2d6027","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nAshontai Samuel Wallace","caseNumber":"WD87231","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashontai Wallace appealed his convictions for first-degree robbery, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and three counts of armed criminal action, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed all convictions. It found sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti for robbery and that the victims were confined for a \"substantial period\" for the kidnapping charges, rejecting Wallace's \"merely incidental\" argument based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113156:2025-10-21","opinionId":"ef651190-ea23-5305-8791-b80433a614ee","slug":"mississippi-valley-equipment-company-respondent-v-david-killian-dba-elite-113156","caseName":"Mississippi Valley Equipment Company, Respondent, vs. David Killian, d/b/a Elite Seawall & Excavating, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113156","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Killian appealed a trial court's judgment finding him personally liable for Mississippi Valley Equipment Company's (MVE) breach of contract claim. Killian argued there was insufficient evidence he contracted in his individual capacity, that he assented to two of the three contracts, and that the attorney's fee award was unsupported. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Killian failed to meet his burden to show the judgment was incorrect on all points.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226618","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mississippi-valley-equipment-company-respondent-v-david-killian-dba-elite-113156","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":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":"moappd:ed113096:2025-10-21","opinionId":"7be37459-ae35-5874-a185-fd6ae476fb70","slug":"ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","caseName":"Ralph Alexander, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113096","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ralph Alexander appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Alexander claimed counsel failed to investigate an alibi witness, failed to file a motion in limine to exclude prior bad acts evidence, and improperly elicited hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Alexander failed to demonstrate prejudice or that counsel's actions fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113128:2025-10-21","opinionId":"69413a86-b50a-5a46-9db9-55084ce0c00d","slug":"timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","caseName":"Timothy Perkins, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113128","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Timothy Perkins appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim about alleged habits of stealing and lying in his statutory sodomy trial. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that counsel's choice not to pursue that specific line of questioning was a reasonable strategic decision, especially given the trial court's prior rulings and counsel's alternative methods of challenging credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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: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:ed113155:2025-10-21","opinionId":"632f5857-980c-54fa-a985-a3743e8e026e","slug":"cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","caseName":"C.M.L., et al., Appellants, v. S.R.B.-F., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113155","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Paternal grandparents C.L. and N.L. appealed the circuit court's judgment granting sole physical and legal custody of their grandson K.J.L. to his mother, S.R.B.-F. The grandparents argued the circuit court misapplied the law by finding a change in circumstances based on unpled issues and by conflating change of circumstance requirements with best interest factors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court properly determined a substantial change in circumstances occurred due to the grandparents' flagrant pattern of willful denial of the mother's visitation rights.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","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":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"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:wd87587:2025-10-21","opinionId":"6191194c-5f71-5b8a-85c7-75e55878a75a","slug":"clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","caseName":"Clay Chastain\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87587","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Clay Chastain appealed pro se from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and its officials, in a case alleging malicious arrest, malicious prosecution, and election interference. The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The dismissal was based on Chastain's brief substantially failing to comply with numerous mandatory provisions of Rule 84.04, despite having been warned of deficiencies in an earlier filing.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","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: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":"moappwd:wd87379:2025-10-07","opinionId":"2a5b41e8-b777-5a53-9007-32247035b8ec","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCody Boehmer","caseNumber":"WD87379","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Boehmer pleaded guilty to property damage and trespass, and the circuit court sentenced him. Later, the court entered a separate order requiring Boehmer to pay restitution. Boehmer appealed, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order after sentencing. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed, vacating the restitution order because the circuit court had exhausted its jurisdiction upon imposing the original sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:wd87585:2025-10-07","opinionId":"6ca5812b-ada2-54fc-a71d-b7245f320e81","slug":"como-premium-construction-llc-dba-como-premium-v-erin-l-pulster-d87585","caseName":"Como Premium Construction LLC, D/B/A Como Premium\nvs.\nErin L. Pulster","caseNumber":"WD87585","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Erin Pulster appealed a trial court judgment finding her liable for breach of contract to CoMo Premium Construction LLC for deck remodeling services. Pulster argued the trial court lacked authority because the parties had an arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Pulster waived her right to arbitration by participating in the bench trial. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine post-judgment attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225658","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/como-premium-construction-llc-dba-como-premium-v-erin-l-pulster-d87585","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":38,"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:ed113056:2025-10-07","opinionId":"34f7efec-60b8-5aa7-89d5-2ef2aec5a5e4","slug":"bank-of-washington-appellant-v-land-clearance-for-redevelopment-authority-113056","caseName":"Bank of Washington, Appellant, vs. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis, and LCRA Holdings Corporation, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113056","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Bank of Washington sued the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (LCRA) and LCRA Holdings Corporation (LCRA Holdings) for breach of contract and tort claims related to property redevelopment agreements. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claims, finding the Bank's theories either unpled or contractually unsupported. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for LCRA Holdings on the tort claims, holding that LCRA Holdings failed to demonstrate it was entitled to sovereign immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bank-of-washington-appellant-v-land-clearance-for-redevelopment-authority-113056","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87399:2025-10-07","opinionId":"6dbbbaaf-99a5-5420-b52e-c58aeba1274c","slug":"hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","caseName":"Hernandez Campbell\nvs. \nAdecco USA, INC.","caseNumber":"WD87399","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hernandez Campbell sued Adecco USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to employment background checks. The trial court granted summary judgment for Adecco on Campbell's disclosure and authorization claims. On appeal, Campbell raised four points, challenging the trial court's reliance on affidavits, the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the provision of a consumer notification, the clarity and conspicuousness of the notification, and the dismissal with prejudice. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on the affidavits, Campbell's failure to properly support his factual assertions, and the merits-based disposition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","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":"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":"moappwd:wd87412:2025-10-07","opinionId":"f08b95a0-4367-5baf-8f68-625a87e95e0b","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: Nathan Goodpasture\nvs.\nSandy Goodpasture","caseNumber":"WD87412","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother, Sandy Goodpasture, appealed the trial court's judgment of modification concerning child custody and support. She raised eight points on appeal, challenging the striking of her pleadings, the handling of domestic violence allegations, child support calculations, interpreter competency, religious beliefs, and the guardian ad litem. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying several of Mother's points due to significant briefing deficiencies and finding no error in the trial court's application of law regarding the striking of pleadings and child support imputation.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225656","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"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:ed112788:2025-09-30","opinionId":"598c52c9-874b-5c89-811e-3b7a4f4eb524","slug":"mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","caseName":"Mose L. Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mose Martin appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following his conviction for first-degree assault. Martin claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a lay witness to impeach the victim's credibility and for failing to call an expert witness to testify about memory impairment caused by crack cocaine use. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that trial counsel's actions were reasonable and that Martin failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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: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":"moappd:ed113338:2025-09-30","opinionId":"f46fda95-29b8-5c8c-a3fc-4927f49219e5","slug":"david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","caseName":"David Kell, Respondent, vs. Walker Recycling Company, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113338","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Kell filed a petition in the circuit court seeking to correct a clerical error in a workers' compensation settlement agreement with Walker Recycling Company, LLC, and to have the court enter judgment on the corrected settlement. The circuit court granted Kell's petition, correcting the employer's name and entering judgment for Kell. Walker Recycling appealed, arguing the judgment lacked substantial evidence, that Kell was not its employee, and that the court lacked authority to modify the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225357","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","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:ed113206:2025-09-30","opinionId":"b2b98569-bf73-553d-85df-5159bdc129c5","slug":"jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","caseName":"Jeanette A. Vogt, Respondent, vs. Walls Real Estate Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113206","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeanette A. Vogt sued Walls Real Estate Company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and Walls Real Estate filed a counterclaim. The trial court entered judgment for Vogt after Walls Real Estate failed to appear at trial and subsequently denied its motions to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment because counsel's absence was a deliberate choice. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported Vogt's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and the award of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","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":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86942:2025-09-30","opinionId":"c038400f-d293-5d4d-8448-d6dbc29d6342","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nHoward Kristopher Moots","caseNumber":"WD86942","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Howard Kristopher Moots appealed his convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the circuit court's written judgment incorrectly stated his sentence as \"999 years\" when the oral pronouncement was \"life in prison.\" The State conceded the error. The appellate court remanded the case to the circuit court to enter a corrected written judgment reflecting the oral pronouncement of life in prison for the statutory sodomy counts, affirming the judgment in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:sd38913:2025-09-26","opinionId":"6317ac10-5021-5ce4-91a9-f5930b90078e","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","caseName":"In the Interest of:  J.H.B. and J.A.B, minor children, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJ.E.B., JR., Natural Father, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38913","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the juvenile court's judgments of adjudication and disposition that placed his children under the care and control of the juvenile court and Children's Division. The juvenile court found the children in need of care and treatment based on Father's criminal history, but rejected allegations of domestic violence. The appellate court vacated the judgments, holding that the juvenile officer failed to present substantial evidence linking Father's past criminal history to a likelihood of future harm to the children, and that the juvenile court improperly relied on evidence against the Mother to the detriment of the Father.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225253","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"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":"moappsd:sd38242:2025-09-25","opinionId":"1468450f-6b40-5dd6-896a-36ce7a8dee8d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38242","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Orlando Moore appealed his convictions for second-degree domestic assault and first-degree property damage following a bench trial. Moore challenged the admission of the victim's statements to police under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception and raised a Sixth Amendment confrontation-clause claim. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the victim's statements because Moore's manipulative actions caused her unavailability, and declined plain error review of the unpreserved confrontation-clause claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","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":"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:ed112866:2025-09-23","opinionId":"70c302a5-4646-50a4-8600-ad2a3c3cc4ef","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112866","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janaya Neither appealed her conviction for assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting social media posts without an adequate foundation, which she claimed resulted in prejudice. The State charged Appellant with assault and armed criminal action for slashing T.G. with a knife, while Appellant claimed self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social media posts, as there was sufficient evidence of their authenticity. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was an error in admission, Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice warranting reversal.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","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":"moappd:ed112755:2025-09-23","opinionId":"97f418e2-82ce-5ac8-b0c2-39cdc866a3be","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed112914:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c93e72ae-0625-5697-bd72-6bd2b0558c31","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kevin P. Coplin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112914","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin P. Coplin was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of child molestation first degree. On appeal, Coplin argued the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his request for a mistrial after the State asked a question on re-direct examination that he claimed improperly implied a prior bad act. The Eastern District affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had \"opened the door\" to the line of questioning, the question was unanswered, and any potential prejudice was negated by jury instructions and the jury's mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:sd38528:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c880658e-6b7a-5387-835e-8fcf27a31e32","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deborah-k-lundstrom-defendant-ap-d38528","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEBORAH K. LUNDSTROM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38528","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah K. Lundstrom was convicted of multiple charges, including first-degree endangering the welfare of a child resulting in death and involuntary manslaughter, after a 9-month-old child died from asphyxiation in a car seat while left unsupervised at her unlicensed daycare. On appeal, Lundstrom challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the death-related charges and argued the trial court plainly erred in a jury instruction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence for both charges and no plain error in the jury instruction, as the terms \"caused\" and \"results in\" were deemed to have no meaningful difference in this context.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deborah-k-lundstrom-defendant-ap-d38528","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112633:2025-09-23","opinionId":"57c29490-8d02-52c8-8814-f43104055cb3","slug":"in-the-interest-of-ajk-112633","caseName":"In the interest of:  A.J.K.","caseNumber":"ED112633","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.J.K. appealed the juvenile court's second order transferring him to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution as an adult, contending the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot. It determined that A.J.K. was already under the circuit court's jurisdiction by virtue of a prior, unchallenged certification order. Therefore, granting the relief A.J.K. sought would have no practical effect on his status.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-ajk-112633","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":"moappsd:sd38593:2025-09-22","opinionId":"a59aeaf0-b1cf-568f-b51b-9355cab2447a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38593","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Sales, Jr., a prior and persistent felony drug offender, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, following a jury trial where he represented himself. Sales challenged the probable cause for a search warrant, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding chain of custody and drug paraphernalia, and claimed he was denied his right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of his claims, including that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed113078:2025-09-16","opinionId":"cb645beb-8fe9-57d9-903a-1566cdaa5b8a","slug":"sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-bryan-nanna-appellant-113078","caseName":"Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. \"Bryan\" Nanna, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113078","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sophia Chu filed a motion to register a foreign (Japanese) divorce judgment against William Nanna. Nanna filed a motion to dismiss the registration and a motion to quash garnishment, which the circuit court denied. Nanna then filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's denial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because a separate, related appeal (ED113487) had already reversed the circuit court's judgment denying Nanna's motion to dismiss.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-bryan-nanna-appellant-113078","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":"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:ed113612:2025-09-16","opinionId":"bc325d40-eaca-544c-afbc-6efb019b2a2a","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Michael Joe Butler, Relator, v. Honorable Joseph Rathert, Circuit Judge, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113612","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Relator Michael Butler filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the Honorable Joseph Rathert from revoking his probation. The circuit court found Butler in violation of probation based on a Notice of Citation and a probation officer's testimony, despite the underlying criminal charge being dismissed and a lack of first-hand evidence or prior disclosure. The appellate court made its preliminary order of prohibition permanent, concluding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Butler his rights to due process and confrontation during the probation revocation hearing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224920","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","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":"moappd:ed113487:2025-09-16","opinionId":"0643a023-7a0c-56cf-89b5-1a98e586bd59","slug":"sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-nanna-appellant-113487","caseName":"Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. Nanna, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113487","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sophia Chu filed an unverified motion to register a Japanese divorce judgment against William Nanna. Nanna moved to dismiss, arguing that Chu failed to file a properly verified petition as required by statute. The circuit court denied Nanna's motion to dismiss. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Chu's failure to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement of filing a verified petition rendered the registration improper, and dismissed Chu's motion to register the foreign judgment without prejudice.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224919","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-nanna-appellant-113487","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":"moappd:ed112950:2025-09-16","opinionId":"da4f7870-a48e-5e83-8822-d4202456fdee","slug":"in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","caseName":"In the interest of:  C.B., Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112950","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"C.B. appealed the juvenile court's judgment dismissing juvenile proceedings and transferring him for adult criminal prosecution, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during the certification proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court clarified that the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington is the appropriate framework for analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in juvenile certification proceedings, and found that C.B.'s counsel was not ineffective and C.B. was not prejudiced.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","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":"moappsd:sd38581:2025-09-09","opinionId":"72ae2e90-279e-57a1-8849-265e9b4c1974","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEPARIS D. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38581","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deparis Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, resisting arrest, and armed criminal action following a jury trial. On appeal, Townsend challenged the admission of a Facebook video and the trial court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial after testimony about his invocation of the right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the handling of the invocation of counsel. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of a life sentence without parole for the murder conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","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":"moappd:ed112801:2025-09-09","opinionId":"62dcceec-1be4-5b07-b3f5-231d09e949b7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ledra Craig, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112801","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ledra Craig appealed his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, following a jury trial. Craig argued the trial court erred by not removing a juror who recognized a witness and potentially saw him in shackles, and by not sua sponte intervening during the prosecutor's closing argument. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in retaining the juror and no plain error in the prosecutor's remarks.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed112942:2025-09-09","opinionId":"d38e2f22-ffac-52f9-a60c-8e67129984a0","slug":"christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","caseName":"Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Russell appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and for not objecting to prejudicial body camera audio. The motion court denied his claims after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding trial counsel's reasonable strategy and lack of prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:sd38642:2025-09-09","opinionId":"dc3f27e3-2c48-57b8-8c1a-83bb079ca368","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL SCOTT MOUNT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38642","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"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:sd38761:2025-09-04","opinionId":"68bfeac9-49e1-507f-b0f4-5ac64ee7da65","slug":"thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","caseName":"THOMAS BENZEN, et al., Respondents\nvs.\nJEFFREY B. WHEELER, et al., Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38761","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"A group of neighbors, including the Benzens and Schniedermeyers (Plaintiffs) and the Wheelers (Defendants), sued each other over various property disputes. The Wheelers appealed the circuit court's judgment granting Plaintiffs an easement by implication across a portion of the Wheelers' property. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, as modified, denying all three of the Wheelers' points on appeal regarding pleading, sufficiency of evidence for reasonable necessity, and the adequacy of the easement's legal description. The modification corrected the judgment to reference the correct count number for the implied easement.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"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: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":"moappd:ed113002:2025-09-02","opinionId":"27b9b297-2384-5ab9-adad-7e5ee12563c1","slug":"colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","caseName":"Colin Rumpsa, Appellant, vs. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113002","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Colin Rumpsa, a former deputy, sued the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and others, alleging violations of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) during his termination process. The circuit court dismissed his petition, finding his claims were barred by the LEOBOR's one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the limitations period begins when the violation itself is ascertainable, not when the resulting damage or final employment action is sustained.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","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":"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:sd38188:2025-08-29","opinionId":"d746e18d-82a5-5cfa-a664-ae559f5ed0fb","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38188","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Cooper appealed his conviction for armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by submitting a jury instruction on armed criminal action with involuntary manslaughter as the underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cooper failed to preserve the instructional error for review by not making a specific objection at trial or in his motion for new trial. The court declined to exercise plain error review, and further noted that even if reviewed, the argument would fail on the merits due to controlling Supreme Court of Missouri precedent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","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"}]}]}