{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"civil-procedure","label":"Civil Procedure","description":null,"totalCases":2189,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},"trend":[{"year":2014,"count":1},{"year":2018,"count":185},{"year":2019,"count":273},{"year":2020,"count":296},{"year":2021,"count":269},{"year":2022,"count":233},{"year":2023,"count":252},{"year":2024,"count":331},{"year":2025,"count":303},{"year":2026,"count":46}],"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":"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":"mo:sc101091:2026-02-24","opinionId":"205e275f-5c24-5dfd-b38f-6c1079796a88","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101091","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd: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: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: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":"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:sc101182:2026-01-23","opinionId":"295f8f79-ce98-5895-a23e-71838bed417c","slug":"in-re-brian-todd-goldstein-respondent-101182","caseName":"In re:  Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101182","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) alleged attorney Brian Todd Goldstein mishandled client funds and engaged in dishonest conduct. Following a de novo review, the Missouri Supreme Court found Goldstein violated Rules 4-1.15(a) (safeguarding of property) and 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Court determined that Goldstein intentionally and repeatedly engaged in misconduct, including diverting client payments to his personal account and misrepresenting firm representation. Consequently, the Court ordered Goldstein disbarred, finding that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors and disbarment was the appropriate baseline discipline.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230209","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-brian-todd-goldstein-respondent-101182","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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":"mo:sc101161:2026-01-23","opinionId":"5107f9d3-2209-58ac-b6f6-75130aa84c76","slug":"colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","caseName":"Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101161","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Colleen Eikmeier and William Love, homeowners in a subdivision, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners' association (HOA) after the legislature enacted a statute proscribing covenants from limiting solar panel installation. The circuit court denied relief, finding the statute could not apply to preexisting covenants. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies to all covenants, including those in existence before its effective date, and that this application does not violate the state constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws or impairment of contracts. The Court also found the HOA's rule prohibiting street-facing solar panels unenforceable as it adversely affected the cost or efficiency of the solar device.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230207","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","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":"mo:sc101308:2026-01-23","opinionId":"3e87fbd8-6c3b-5141-ac25-289beec22fdf","slug":"sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","caseName":"Sean Soendker Nicholson, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC101308","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Sean Soendker Nicholson sued the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 22, alleging violations of the original purpose, single subject, and clear title provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court found SB 22 constitutional regarding these procedural limitations but unconstitutional on equal protection grounds for one section, which it severed. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement because an amendment granting the attorney general new appeal powers was not germane to the bill's original purpose concerning ballot summaries. The Court further found the offending provision could not be severed, thus invalidating SB 22 in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101157:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0337ba9b-2357-5e36-a3d9-78eb4c402946","slug":"in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","caseName":"In re:  Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101157","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"moappwd:wd87831:2025-12-30","opinionId":"f02d90f8-9ea3-5cce-8c27-4c95503358aa","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission\nvs.\nCounty Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature","caseNumber":"WD87831","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State Tax Commission initiated a mandamus action against Jackson County officials, seeking to compel compliance with its order to alter 2023 property tax assessments. The trial court dismissed the action, finding it barred by res judicata due to a prior voluntarily dismissed lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the current mandamus action was based on new ultimate facts—the County's refusal to comply with the Commission's August 6 Order—which arose after the dismissal of the first case, thus precluding the application of res judicata.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"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: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":"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: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":"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":"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: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:wd87819:2025-12-09","opinionId":"29e6a29c-db34-51af-9ed4-701248304378","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke\nvs.\nDeborah S. Starke","caseNumber":"WD87819","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah S. Starke (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James A. Starke (Husband), specifically challenging the order to convey marital real estate to a third-party trust. The Wife contended that the trial court erred by ordering the conveyance of marital property to a non-party to the dissolution action, which violates Missouri law. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228275","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112983:2025-12-09","opinionId":"95ea2f52-be7b-5264-b277-aa14672bf105","slug":"michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","caseName":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr., Appellant, vs. Spencer Fane, LLP, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr. sued Spencer Fane LLP, alleging legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent nondisclosure related to his investment in a car dealership. Shanahan claimed Spencer Fane misrepresented his GM approval status and failed to disclose his lack of approval. The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer Fane on all claims, which Shanahan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Shanahan failed to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship, an affirmative misrepresentation, or a duty to speak.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"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":"moappwd:wd87315:2025-12-02","opinionId":"df04912a-d16b-5bc7-b549-3c5d5ef3d61b","slug":"randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","caseName":"Randa M. Techtow\nvs.\nJesse T. Techtow","caseNumber":"WD87315","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","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:parent-227975","opinionId":"b4f00716-49f9-5e3d-bd4e-2ef9de80d3be","slug":"city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","caseName":"City of Jefferson, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Sprint Communications, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113433","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Jefferson, Missouri, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its claims against various telecommunication companies for delinquent business license taxes, violations of section 392.350, declaratory judgment, and accounting. The City argued the circuit court erred in interpreting the \"limitation for bringing suit\" in section 71.625.2, dismissing its section 392.350 and declaratory judgment claims as derivative or having an adequate legal remedy, and dismissing its accounting claims. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgments, holding that the City failed to comply with statutory assessment and notice requirements for tax collection, lacked standing under section 392.350, and had adequate remedies at law for its declaratory judgment and accounting claims.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113533:2025-11-25","opinionId":"4409f861-84c3-5f80-891f-646b63586587","slug":"charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","caseName":"Charles Lane, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113533","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Charles Lane challenged the validity of a City of St. Louis Charter amendment that created a Charter Commission, arguing it violated Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution by allowing the Commission to bypass the city's lawmaking body in submitting charter amendments to voters. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the City, finding the amendment valid. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Charter Amendment, when read in its entirety, provides that the Charter Commission frames proposals, but the Board of Alderman ultimately submits them to the voters, thereby complying with the Missouri Constitution.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227783","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd88066:2025-11-25","opinionId":"9dbfe659-5c0d-5db3-9062-1eadf51d1df5","slug":"victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","caseName":"Victoria Amrine\nvs. \nProgressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD88066","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Victoria Amrine appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits, which stemmed from her termination by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for failing to disclose a criminal charge. The appellate court did not reach the merits of Amrine's claims. Instead, the appeal was dismissed because Amrine's brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, including an incomplete statement of facts, deficient points relied on, and an argument section lacking legal authority and record references. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227759","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113129:2025-11-25","opinionId":"478a621b-29d7-5577-bc30-99f4bd038c26","slug":"matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","caseName":"Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113129","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Callow (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Callow (Father). Mother challenged the denial of maintenance, the child support calculation, the division of marital property and uninsured medical bills, and the denial of her motion for newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227780","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"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":"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: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: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":"mo:sc101018:2025-11-04","opinionId":"d6c17f35-ba6a-5544-8fb8-9d622d2e9956","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101018","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed a judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis on his petition to compel the production of traffic stop data under Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks claimed the judgment was against the weight of the evidence because the City allegedly withheld responsive records. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Weeks failed to cite or apply the necessary four-step analytical framework to demonstrate that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The Court also expressly adopted the Houston v. Crider framework for such claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd: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: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":"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: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: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:wd87715:2025-10-14","opinionId":"3f12ea58-056b-5a0f-9822-1f4fd2ce364b","slug":"david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","caseName":"David Woody\nvs. \nPatrick Clark, Jay Bettis, & Richard Riddell","caseNumber":"WD87715","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Woody, an elected County Clerk and member of the Missouri National Guard, sued the County Commission after it limited his salary payment to 120 hours per federal fiscal year during his 400-day active federal military deployment. Woody argued he was entitled to full salary under § 41.942.1, while the Commission relied on § 105.270.1. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Commission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that § 41.942.1 preserves a deployed Guard member's compensation rate and terms (\"pay status\"), but not the right to continued salary payment during extended federal deployment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"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: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":"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: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":"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":"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: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: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":"moappwd:wd87250:2025-09-09","opinionId":"0d27cb6c-560b-5d0d-b2d4-4deca0918f19","slug":"anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","caseName":"Anthony E. Barron\nvs.\nMartha Parker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Catherine L. Brizendine (Deceased)","caseNumber":"WD87250","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony E. Barron sought specific performance of a contract to purchase Catherine Brizendine's farm. Brizendine's daughter, Martha Parker, acting as her representative, appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that Brizendine lacked contractual capacity and was unduly influenced, and that the trial court erred in denying a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support Brizendine's capacity, no undue influence, and that a bench trial was appropriate for the equitable claim of specific performance.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","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":"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: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:sd38530:2025-08-29","opinionId":"a733c383-c981-5635-9cf4-cae16343912f","slug":"howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","caseName":"HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38530","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed an \"Amended Order and Judgment\" from the motion court, which granted Howard Roberts' Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, vacated his conviction and sentence, ordered a new trial, and directed his immediate release. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the Amended Order was not a final judgment because it failed to adjudicate all of Roberts' viable claims. Additionally, the court vacated the portion of the order releasing Roberts, holding that Rule 30.17 mandates a defendant remain in custody during the State's appeal of a post-conviction relief order.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":42,"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:sd38589:2025-08-29","opinionId":"620053de-4a19-54f4-8c5c-ec4f6bf7309a","slug":"christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","caseName":"CHRISTINA N. KNAPP, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38589","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christina N. Knapp appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming her plea counsel coerced her into pleading guilty, rendering her plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The motion court denied relief, finding plea counsel's testimony credible and that Knapp's plea was voluntary. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err because the plea hearing record and counsel's testimony refuted Knapp's claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","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:ed112945:2025-08-26","opinionId":"748f40cf-c118-51aa-91e9-fc7b69e5d111","slug":"donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","caseName":"Donna J. Scalise, Respondent, vs. William J. Scalise, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112945","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"William J. Scalise appealed a contempt order finding him in violation of his maintenance obligations to Donna J. Scalise, stemming from their dissolution judgment. The appellate court questioned whether the appeal was from a final, appealable judgment, and Husband subsequently filed a document purporting to certify findings under Rule 74.01(b). The court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the initial contempt order nor the subsequent certification attempt constituted a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223935","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38649:2025-08-26","opinionId":"66e32495-0614-54c4-bdd1-ff6bbff0f8ab","slug":"corporate-village-owners-association-inc-plaintiff-respondent-v-corporate-d38649","caseName":"CORPORATE VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCORPORATE VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant-Appellant and SOUTHERN BANK, Intervenor","caseNumber":"SD38649","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Corporate Village Owners Association, Inc. sued Corporate Village, LLC, seeking quiet title to undeveloped land within a condominium development and a declaratory judgment regarding development rights. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Association, declaring the undeveloped area a common element and that the Declarant's development rights had expired. The appellate court affirmed, deeming one point abandoned for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(e) and holding that the Declarant had not legally \"created\" additional units under the Uniform Condominium Act before the development rights expired.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/corporate-village-owners-association-inc-plaintiff-respondent-v-corporate-d38649","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":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:ed113320:2025-08-26","opinionId":"fd96804d-c201-5ab9-a034-338de862fdc0","slug":"temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","caseName":"Temujin Kensu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, vs. Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., d/b/a Access Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113320","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Temujin Kensu filed a class action against Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., alleging breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to a digital music service for prisoners. The trial court granted class certification for these claims, but Keefe Commissary appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification but reversed and remanded the case due to an improperly defined class that included a determination of the merits.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223937","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","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":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":"moappsd:sd38672:2025-08-25","opinionId":"cf75e8ce-2fdd-5936-9788-81a919d9c423","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-melvin-anderson-relator-v-honorable-mark-preyer-d38672","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. \nMELVIN ANDERSON, Relator\nv.\nHONORABLE MARK PREYER, Respondent\nand\nSTATE OF MISSOURI EX REL.\nATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREW BAILEY, Relator\nv. \nHONORABLE MARK PREYER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38672","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Relator Melvin Anderson and the Missouri Attorney General filed competing writ petitions after a successor judge, following the death of the original trial judge, accepted conflicting jury verdicts, discharged the jury, and then ordered a new trial. The appellate court made the preliminary writs of prohibition permanent, vacating the trial court's new-trial orders. The court held that the successor judge lacked authority to grant a new trial under Rule 29.11 due to untimeliness, but could potentially do so under Rule 32.15 if he determined he could not perform the necessary duties. The court also clarified double jeopardy implications for unequivocal acquittals, unequivocal guilty verdicts, and inconsistent verdicts, directing the trial court to conduct a Rule 32.15 analysis.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-melvin-anderson-relator-v-honorable-mark-preyer-d38672","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:ed113028:2025-08-19","opinionId":"d6381652-98fb-50e8-9462-665ee3b15077","slug":"body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","caseName":"Body Treats Etc., LLC, Respondent, vs. Matt Tarrillion, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113028","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Matt Tarrillion appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Body Treats Etc., LLC, in an unlawful detainer action. Body Treats claimed Tarrillion was a month-to-month sublessee, while Tarrillion argued he was a co-tenant under a written lease. The appellate court denied Body Treats' motion to dismiss for mootness and reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the written lease clearly established Tarrillion as a co-tenant with equal rights to possession, making the unlawful detainer judgment against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","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":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:ed112980:2025-08-19","opinionId":"c9d7c27f-3248-5f9e-a522-b373224367ec","slug":"cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","caseName":"Cassandra Murphy, Appellant, vs. Intensiva Hospital of Greater St. Louis, Inc., D/B/A Select Specialty Hospital, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112980","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cassandra Murphy appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing her lawsuit for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act for failure to prosecute. The circuit court had dismissed her case with prejudice after a period of perceived inactivity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion because Murphy's counsel had taken sufficient actions, including moving to remove the case from the dismissal docket, engaging in preliminary settlement negotiations, and attempting to schedule a deposition, to prevent a finding of substantial delay. The case was remanded with specific instructions to reinstate Murphy's case.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","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":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113153:2025-08-19","opinionId":"15cee353-dbd4-5c11-bb56-bf8e8bf1829a","slug":"jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","caseName":"Jennifer Kubinak, Appellant, v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113153","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jennifer Kubinak, a 64-year-old woman, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southeast Missouri State University on her claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Kubinak alleged she was paid less than similarly situated male and younger employees and that the University retaliated against her after she filed a discrimination charge. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kubinak failed to present admissible evidence or properly support her denials and additional facts as required by Rule 74.04(c)(2) to create a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","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":"mo:sc100999:2025-08-12","opinionId":"0a78b430-7132-59ac-912e-00f4f4cd01e8","slug":"catharine-sue-carter-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-david-ca-100999","caseName":"Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100999","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Catharine Sue Carter, as personal representative of David Carter's estate, and the Missouri Department of Corrections both appealed the circuit court's judgment following a jury verdict in Carter's favor on discrimination claims. Carter challenged the reduction of damages under a statutory cap, while the Department argued Carter failed to make a submissible case. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not final because it failed to rule on Carter's requests for equitable relief and prejudgment interest.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/catharine-sue-carter-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-david-ca-100999","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":"mo:sc101176:2025-08-12","opinionId":"5e1092a4-44ea-5fbc-b9b5-9a7d3ac8da53","slug":"comprehensive-health-of-planned-parenthood-great-plains-et-al-respondents-101176","caseName":"Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC101176","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, which partially enjoined certain abortion-related state statutes and regulations at the request of Planned Parenthood. The Missouri Supreme Court determined it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that an appeal from a preliminary injunction, where the circuit court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes, does not invoke its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/comprehensive-health-of-planned-parenthood-great-plains-et-al-respondents-101176","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113120:2025-08-12","opinionId":"17c4690b-a7dc-5fcd-9498-f13cf845032f","slug":"douglas-luttrell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113120","caseName":"Douglas Luttrell, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113120","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Douglas Luttrell appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, arguing ineffective assistance of plea counsel. The appellate court, however, determined that Luttrell's pro se motion was untimely, having been filed 182 days after sentencing, exceeding the 180-day limit. Because Luttrell failed to plead facts demonstrating a recognized exception to the timeliness rule, the court concluded that neither it nor the motion court had authority to hear his claims. The judgment was vacated, and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-luttrell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113120","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:sc100998:2025-08-12","opinionId":"6b9aeae8-7870-5e0f-ab00-8513a02c2ca0","slug":"kevin-rhodes-appellant-respondent-v-missouri-highways-and-transportation-100998","caseName":"Kevin Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, Respondent-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100998","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin Rhodes, a former employee, and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission both appealed the circuit court's judgment following a jury verdict in Rhodes's favor on his claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Rhodes challenged the constitutional validity of a damages cap, while the Commission argued Rhodes failed to make a submissible case. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not final because it failed to rule on Rhodes's requests for equitable relief and prejudgment interest.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-rhodes-appellant-respondent-v-missouri-highways-and-transportation-100998","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:ed113144:2025-08-12","opinionId":"2deff401-ee43-5663-abe2-0237e37f01c0","slug":"xtra-lease-llc-respondent-v-united-trans-logistics-inc-appellant-113144","caseName":"Xtra Lease LLC, Respondent, v. United Trans Logistics, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113144","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant United Trans Logistics appealed the circuit court's denial of its second motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Respondent Xtra Lease LLC. The underlying dispute involved breach of contract and an action on account. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that the second motion to set aside the default judgment was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the issues raised were substantially the same as those litigated in Appellant's first motion, which was not timely appealed.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/xtra-lease-llc-respondent-v-united-trans-logistics-inc-appellant-113144","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":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-222933","opinionId":"5e424bb6-760f-5b83-b138-41b97347e3d5","slug":"louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","caseName":"Louis Jones, et al. \nvs. \nMissouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87295","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-05","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claimants, recipients of Tort Victims Compensation Fund awards, sued the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the Division of Workers' Compensation after the Division paid only 40% of their approved claims, contending the payment calculation was erroneous. The circuit court denied relief, finding the suits barred by sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively, that the calculation was proper. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's conclusions on sovereign immunity and administrative exhaustion but affirmed the judgment that the Division's payment calculation was lawful.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38514:2025-07-30","opinionId":"90d691a8-c581-5c60-9baa-3cf457dded6f","slug":"glenda-m-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38514","caseName":"GLENDA M. YOUNG, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38514","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Glenda Young appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Young argued that the motion court erred by failing to conduct an abandonment hearing after her amended motion was untimely filed. The appellate court vacated the motion court's denial of postconviction relief and remanded the case, holding that the motion court clearly erred by not conducting the required abandonment hearing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/glenda-m-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38514","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:ed113033:2025-07-29","opinionId":"b9b94239-593a-591a-8a5a-901d97d7d731","slug":"jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","caseName":"J.N., a Minor, by and through his Next Friend, Colleen Nentwig and Colleen Nentwig, Individually, Appellants, and Ryne Dobson, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Dale Anderson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113033","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"J.N. and Colleen Nentwig sued Dr. Dale Anderson for wrongful death, alleging medical negligence after Ryne Dobson killed his stepfather, Kevin Nentwig. Appellants claimed Dr. Anderson failed to warn of Dobson's danger or negligently prescribed medication. On appeal, Appellants argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a novel theory of duty for psychiatrists to third parties regarding medication-induced harm. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Dr. Anderson, declining to recognize this new duty because Dobson's violent conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112676:2025-07-29","opinionId":"9eacd0f0-8c29-5475-9f4e-20e2063201d2","slug":"michael-j-holmes-appellant-v-kenneth-zellers-andrew-bailey-mayor-tishaura-112676","caseName":"Michael J. Holmes, Appellant, vs. Kenneth Zellers, Andrew Bailey, Mayor Tishaura Jones, Bettye Battle-Turner, Richard Gray, Thomas Irwin, Erwin Switzer, Francis Slay, and City of St. Louis, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112676","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Holmes, whose federal drug convictions were vacated due to police misconduct, obtained a $2.5 million civil rights judgment against the involved officers. He then sought a declaratory judgment that either the State or the City of St. Louis was obligated to indemnify the officers and pay the judgment, with the claim against the City previously remanded by the Supreme Court. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, but the appellate court reversed that decision. The appellate court granted summary judgment for Holmes, holding that the Board of Police Commissioners, whose obligations the City inherited, had agreed to indemnify the officers through its policy and actions, thereby compelling the City to pay the judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-j-holmes-appellant-v-kenneth-zellers-andrew-bailey-mayor-tishaura-112676","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112865:2025-07-29","opinionId":"973e71fb-ecd7-5d23-8ab2-4d93aa06dcb9","slug":"lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","caseName":"Lucas E. Wilkinson, Appellant, vs. Farmers Holding Companies, D/B/A Capital Sand, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112865","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lucas Wilkinson sued Farmers Holding Companies d/b/a Capital Sand, Inc. for violating Missouri's service letter statute after his employment was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer failed to meet its threshold burden for summary judgment by not properly pleading an affirmative defense as required by Rule 55.08, instead merely asserting facts in its motion.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","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":"moappsd:sd38390:2025-07-23","opinionId":"33054461-7ade-5356-8170-08ec2e789d44","slug":"ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","caseName":"A.O., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nLESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, d/b/a COX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, and COXHEALTH, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38390","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.O. sued Lester E. Cox Medical Centers and CoxHealth for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failure to protect, after a certified medical assistant allegedly sexually assaulted her during an allergic reaction observation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding A.O. failed to present competent medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care for her medical negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that A.O.'s claims required medical expert testimony, which she failed to provide, and that summary judgment for one defendant properly disposed of claims against all.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112875:2025-07-22","opinionId":"16ad2185-1fae-512b-aafd-0bee13dc20e9","slug":"tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","caseName":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, Respondent, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112875","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation purchased a property at a sheriff's sale under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law (MLRL). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) had previously recorded a lien on the property for unpaid sewer bills, pursuant to one of its ordinances. Tabernacle filed a quiet title action to extinguish the MSD lien, arguing the MLRL supersedes the MSD ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tabernacle, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the MLRL statute prevails over the MSD ordinance and extinguishes the lien.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100898:2025-07-22","opinionId":"5ce2fd97-3809-5985-adb5-ae7abbe9c25d","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100898","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one \"local government\" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of \"local government\" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222378","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38886:2025-07-16","opinionId":"dd22d7e2-7762-55aa-a842-129ccac296f1","slug":"in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","caseName":"In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased.","caseNumber":"SD38886","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Jones, surviving spouse of Quentin Lee Jones, appealed the Probate Court's approval of a final settlement for Decedent's estate. She argued the court erred by approving the settlement while objections and a Petition for Discovery of Assets remained unresolved. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. It held that the Probate Court lacked authority to approve the final settlement without a hearing on the objections and without resolving the pending discovery of assets petition, as required by statute.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","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:ed113127:2025-07-15","opinionId":"21754b24-5fdb-5058-8f8e-93205a55853d","slug":"robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","caseName":"Robert Wayne, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Washington University d/b/a Washington University, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113127","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Wayne, a former police officer for Washington University, appealed the dismissal of his petition alleging the University violated his rights under Missouri's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), section 590.502 RSMo. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the LEOBOR does not apply to private universities. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plain language of the LEOBOR limits its application to public entities, and that Wayne's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222198","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","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":"moappd:ed113004:2025-07-15","opinionId":"0640c051-89aa-5f88-b16f-76b723aa3904","slug":"richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","caseName":"Richard Hershey, Appellant, vs. The Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Hershey sued the Curators of the University of Missouri and four individual employees, alleging violations of the Campus Free Expression Act (CFEA). The circuit court dismissed claims against the individual defendants and granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the CFEA does not authorize a cause of action against individuals in their individual capacities and that Hershey's appellate brief failed to properly challenge the summary judgment by not connecting arguments to the summary judgment record.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222197","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112738:2025-07-15","opinionId":"da1387ab-6436-5064-abee-4f6adb89aae9","slug":"matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","caseName":"Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary D. Weiss (Wife) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a consent judgment of dissolution of marriage to Matthew J. Weiss (Husband). Wife argued the judgment was not entered into freely and voluntarily due to duress, and challenged the appointment of a Special Master, the timing of the judgment, and the award of attorneys' fees to Husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Wife's motions and concluding that some of her points on appeal were moot or not properly before the court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222196","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","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:ed112825:2025-07-08","opinionId":"16cb8130-1e9e-51d9-9311-9a5cd6a1178b","slug":"bellemeade-homeowners-association-appellant-v-tyler-taylor-et-al-responde-112825","caseName":"Bellemeade Homeowners Association, Appellant, vs. Tyler Taylor, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112825","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bellemeade Homeowners Association sued Tyler and Shana Taylor for declaratory judgment and breach of contract after the Taylors erected a fence that Bellemeade deemed non-compliant with its Declaration of Trust and Restrictions. The trial court ruled in favor of the Taylors, finding the fencing restriction ambiguous and waived by Bellemeade's inconsistent enforcement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Declaration unambiguously required fencing to start at the rear corners of the residence and that its anti-waiver provision preserved Bellemeade's right to enforce the restriction.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222204","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bellemeade-homeowners-association-appellant-v-tyler-taylor-et-al-responde-112825","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87590:2025-07-08","opinionId":"2949c777-1970-59b1-85c5-b0f632140cbc","slug":"motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","caseName":"Motors Insurance Corporation\nvs.\nAutobot Towing, LLC","caseNumber":"WD87590","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Motors Insurance Corporation sued Autobot Towing, LLC for conversion after Autobot towed a truck owned by Insurer and later sold it for scrap to cover towing and storage fees. The circuit court found in favor of Insurer, awarding $35,015 in compensatory damages. On appeal, Autobot argued it complied with abandoned property statutes and that the damages were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Autobot failed to comply with the statutory notice and disposal requirements, and that the damage award was supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221960","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113380:2025-07-01","opinionId":"6e0a69fd-c617-5f21-934e-24305707b6ca","slug":"larry-kinman-et-al-appellants-v-christopher-donahoo-respondent-113380","caseName":"Larry Kinman, et al., Appellants, v. Christopher Donahoo, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113380","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Larry and Stacie Kinman (Grandparents) appealed the circuit court's judgment that set aside a default judgment against Christopher Donahoo (Father), sustained Father's motion for a change of judge, and dismissed the underlying petition for child custody. Grandparents argued that Father's motion for a change of judge was untimely because a motion to set aside a default judgment is not an independent action. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that a motion to set aside a default judgment is indeed an independent action, making the motion for a change of judge timely. The court also found Grandparents abandoned their second point on appeal by failing to cite supporting authority.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221815","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-kinman-et-al-appellants-v-christopher-donahoo-respondent-113380","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87521:2025-07-01","opinionId":"b6f38c8d-45f8-5d56-ac9c-be802e7efd5c","slug":"rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","caseName":"Rose Howland\nvs.\nTruman Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a University Health Lakewood Medical Center","caseNumber":"WD87521","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rose Howland sued Truman Medical Center, alleging co-workers improperly accessed her patient records, discovered her COVID-19 vaccination status, and subsequently harassed and demoted her, forcing her resignation. The trial court dismissed most claims for lack of standing and a negligence per se claim for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Howland's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, negligence, and negligent training and supervision, concluding she had sufficiently alleged standing. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se claim, holding that HIPAA and HITECH do not provide a private right of action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","employment-law","negligence","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221675","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112557:2025-06-27","opinionId":"b11bc7c3-c3b0-5d6d-9987-41a24f3e31cf","slug":"joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","caseName":"Joy Janelle McVean, Respondent, vs. Anthony David McVean, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112557","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony David McVean appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Joy Janelle McVean, challenging the trial court's imputation of income, awards of maintenance and child support, and division of marital property. Husband argued the court erred in imputing income after he voluntarily quit his job, and that the support awards were beyond his ability to pay. He also claimed the property division was disproportionate. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112725:2025-06-24","opinionId":"9d243e69-e528-55d3-aa26-0d48e943ac59","slug":"caw-respondent-v-nkd-appellant-112725","caseName":"C.A.W., Respondent, vs. N.K.D., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112725","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's judgment ordering him to pay $1,583.00 in monthly child support. The trial court had rejected its own Form 14 calculations, which were based on evidence presented at trial, and instead relied on a four-year-old pendente lite order. The appellate court found this to be a misapplication of law, reversed the child support award, and, pursuant to Rule 84.14, entered judgment for child support in the amount of $472.00 per month, consistent with the trial court's post-trial Form 14.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221538","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/caw-respondent-v-nkd-appellant-112725","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:ed112720:2025-06-24","opinionId":"cf0c62ea-1f2d-5fb0-9db8-30ab301d1a6d","slug":"claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-city-of-wildwood-respondent-112720","caseName":"Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. City of Wildwood, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112720","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claymont Development, LLC appealed the dismissal of its petition challenging the constitutionality of zoning ordinances enacted by the City of Wildwood, which subjected its property to additional development regulations. The trial court had dismissed the petition, concluding the claims were not ripe for adjudication. The appellate court reversed, holding that Claymont's constitutional challenges to the ordinances were ripe, as the ordinances directly impacted its development plans and presented predominantly legal questions with fully developed historical facts.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221536","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-city-of-wildwood-respondent-112720","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86931:2025-06-24","opinionId":"16b907bb-c78b-5c51-90a5-9404f00295db","slug":"in-the-matter-of-arthur-c-claypoole-protectee-janet-ravenscraft-v-jennife-d86931","caseName":"In the Matter of Arthur C. Claypoole, Protectee; Janet Ravenscraft\nvs. \nJennifer Claypoole","caseNumber":"WD86931","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janet Ravenscraft appealed an order appointing Jennifer Claypoole as the sole guardian and conservator of their father, Arthur, and removing Janet as co-guardian and co-conservator. The appellate court determined that the order was an immediately appealable interlocutory order under Missouri probate law. However, the court dismissed Janet's appeal as untimely, holding that her notice of appeal was filed 116 days after the order, well beyond the ten-day period required for such interlocutory orders.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-arthur-c-claypoole-protectee-janet-ravenscraft-v-jennife-d86931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"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:ed112532:2025-06-24","opinionId":"1ceb1c58-5682-5f5c-841d-576eadb355a4","slug":"mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","caseName":"Mark McCostlin, and Karen McCostlin, Appellants, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112532","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Karen McCostlin appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Monsanto Company in their strict liability and negligence action, alleging Mr. McCostlin's exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The McCostlins contended their expert testimony established a submissible case on causation, the trial court misinterpreted evidence, and erred in denying a motion to recall an expert and sustaining an objection during redirect. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the McCostlins' causation expert failed to demonstrate a causal connection, and the trial court did not err in its procedural and evidentiary rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"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:ed113000:2025-06-24","opinionId":"3c201dfa-d2c4-500a-9463-03833841b33d","slug":"christopher-shreves-appellant-v-mercy-gohealth-urgent-care-llc-et-al-resp-113000","caseName":"Christopher Shreves, Appellant, vs. Mercy-GoHealth Urgent Care, LLC, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113000","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Shreves appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice suit without prejudice, arguing that Section 538.225 provides 180 days, not 90, to file a motion for an extension of time to file affidavits of merit. Shreves had refiled his case without an affidavit and filed his motion for extension 135 days after refiling. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the statute unambiguously grants only 90 days to file an affidavit of merit or seek an extension.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221539","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-shreves-appellant-v-mercy-gohealth-urgent-care-llc-et-al-resp-113000","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38365:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8a5aa9a0-a83c-56cf-bbd0-7df69b6d243d","slug":"gordon-bundy-and-marlene-bundy-trustees-of-the-gordon-g-bundy-and-marlene-d38365","caseName":"GORDON BUNDY and MARLENE BUNDY, trustees of the Gordon G. Bundy and Marlene K. Bundy Trust dated December 13, 2017, Appellants\nv.\nBRETT RAPIEN and TRISHA RAPIEN, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38365","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Neighboring property owners, the Bundys and Rapiens, sued each other over the use and maintenance of a shared gravel road easement. The trial court granted injunctive relief, dictating specific maintenance responsibilities and restrictions for portions of the road. On appeal, the Bundys argued the trial court misapplied the law. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that a statutory remedy under Chapter 228 RSMo provided an adequate remedy at law, precluding equitable injunctive relief, and that the injunction granted exceeded the scope of the pleadings and evidence.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gordon-bundy-and-marlene-bundy-trustees-of-the-gordon-g-bundy-and-marlene-d38365","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87182:2025-06-17","opinionId":"057653d4-1062-56ca-b707-803f24be654c","slug":"felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","caseName":"Felisha DeSpain\nvs. \nNathan DeSpain and Brandi Judah, Guardian ad litem; Rose C. Brisco","caseNumber":"WD87182","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Attorney Rose Briscoe appealed sanctions imposed by the circuit court in a dissolution of marriage case, stemming from her use of audio recordings made by the parties' son during sessions with the guardian ad litem (GAL) and a court-appointed therapist. The circuit court had found that Briscoe violated attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and therapist-patient privilege. The appellate court reversed the sanctions, holding that none of these privileges or protections applied to the communications at issue. The case was remanded for the circuit court to reconsider whether sanctions were warranted on other grounds, independent of privilege claims.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","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":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87298:2025-06-17","opinionId":"f282cd7d-d5be-5965-a911-64ca4c6d1384","slug":"joseph-weixeldorfer-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87298","caseName":"Joseph Weixeldorfer\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87298","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Joseph Weixeldorfer, a former employee of the Kansas City Fire Department, sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri, alleging unauthorized disclosure of medical information, negligence, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City and denied Weixeldorfer's motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Petition. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the amendments because the proposed new parties were time-barred and lacked proper notice, and the new legal theories for sovereign immunity and breach of contract lacked merit or were untimely raised.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-weixeldorfer-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87298","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:wd87569:2025-06-17","opinionId":"09f1dbfd-0cc5-5ff6-a3f6-f07286045f37","slug":"financial-credit-investments-ii-trust-e-v-estate-of-georgia-towers-et-al-d87569","caseName":"Financial Credit Investments II, Trust E\nvs. \nEstate of Georgia Towers, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87569","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Financial Credit Investments II, Trust E, sued the Estate of Georgia Towers and Edwin Towers in Jackson County, Missouri, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding a $5 million life insurance policy and indemnification. The Estate moved to dismiss, citing parallel litigation in Minnesota and Delaware concerning whether the policy was an unlawful \"stranger originated life insurance\" (STOLI) policy. The circuit court dismissed Financial Credit's action, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the dismissal was a proper exercise of discretion under the comity doctrine given the pending out-of-state litigation, similar issues, and Delaware's greater interest.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221317","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/financial-credit-investments-ii-trust-e-v-estate-of-georgia-towers-et-al-d87569","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":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}