{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official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":"contracts","label":"Contracts","description":null,"totalCases":514,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":49},{"year":2019,"count":58},{"year":2020,"count":68},{"year":2021,"count":71},{"year":2022,"count":58},{"year":2023,"count":60},{"year":2024,"count":72},{"year":2025,"count":67},{"year":2026,"count":11}],"cases":[{"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":"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: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":"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":"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":"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":"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":"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: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: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:ed113206:2025-09-30","opinionId":"b2b98569-bf73-553d-85df-5159bdc129c5","slug":"jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","caseName":"Jeanette A. Vogt, Respondent, vs. Walls Real Estate Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113206","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeanette A. Vogt sued Walls Real Estate Company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and Walls Real Estate filed a counterclaim. The trial court entered judgment for Vogt after Walls Real Estate failed to appear at trial and subsequently denied its motions to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment because counsel's absence was a deliberate choice. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported Vogt's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and the award of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd: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":"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":"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: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":"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: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: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:ed112874:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8bbdc57e-8ed8-59ee-bceb-5cc81e2533e2","slug":"kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","caseName":"Kyle D. Becker, Appellant, vs. Thomas M. Schenk, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112874","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle D. Becker sued Thomas M. Schenk for personal injuries sustained during an amateur ice hockey game, specifically a broken wrist. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Schenk, concluding Becker had assumed the risk of injury. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment, holding that Becker expressly assumed the risk of breaking a bone by signing a clear and unambiguous liability waiver. The court also found that Becker impliedly assumed the inherent risks of playing ice hockey.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","summary-judgment","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87410:2025-06-17","opinionId":"3d576594-09a7-5671-89ac-8272319c8669","slug":"stephan-johannesmeyer-v-net-zero-llc-d87410","caseName":"Stephan Johannesmeyer\nvs. \nNet Zero, LLC.","caseNumber":"WD87410","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Stephan Johannesmeyer sued Net Zero, LLC for breach of a promissory note, alleging Net Zero failed to make payments on a $450,000 note issued as part of an asset purchase agreement. Net Zero appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Johannesmeyer, arguing he lacked standing to sue and there was no consideration for the note. The appellate court affirmed, finding Johannesmeyer had standing as the note's holder and that Net Zero failed to overcome the statutory presumption of consideration.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephan-johannesmeyer-v-net-zero-llc-d87410","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd: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":"moappsd:sd38385:2025-06-16","opinionId":"ffbdab30-966a-570a-aea9-9338e0ccd4e4","slug":"candace-harrell-kyle-candace-harrell-kyle-personal-representative-of-the-d38385","caseName":"CANDACE HARRELL KYLE, CANDACE HARRELL KYLE, Personal Representative of the Estate of GEORGE L. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv\nCAROLYN FOWLER, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of VERNON RAY FOWLER, and as Trustee Of the Joint Revocable Living Trust Indenture of Vernon Ray Fowler and Carolyn A. Fowler dated June 21, 2011, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38385","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Candace Harrell Kyle sued Carolyn Fowler over a one-half interest in a 75.55-acre property, seeking cancellation of a deed, a constructive trust, and damages for breach of an oral contract. The trial court granted relief to Kyle on these claims. On appeal, the Southern District of Missouri vacated the trial court's judgment, holding that the claim for cancellation of the deed was time-barred by the 10-year statute of limitations and that the alleged oral contract for an interest in land was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/candace-harrell-kyle-candace-harrell-kyle-personal-representative-of-the-d38385","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":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:ed112961:2025-06-10","opinionId":"7745a6ab-228e-51cd-aa15-bcff425075d2","slug":"aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","caseName":"Aaron Russell Roesch, Appellant, vs. Brittany Leigh Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, L.L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112961","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Aaron Roesch sued Brittany Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, LLC, seeking to enforce an oral agreement for the sale of real property through a constructive trust. Roesch alleged Sheffer agreed to purchase a property for his benefit and then sell it to him, but later demanded a significantly higher price. The trial court dismissed Roesch's petition, citing the statute of frauds and failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Roesch failed to adequately plead a constructive trust claim because he did not allege Sheffer accepted his tendered payment, which is necessary to establish unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","trusts","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","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":"moappd:ed112375:2025-06-10","opinionId":"7c4fb8f4-07bc-5e03-a05f-e767d928d11f","slug":"hoeman-capital-management-respondent-v-david-robinson-and-7-r-farm-compan-112375","caseName":"Hoeman Capital Management, Respondent, vs. David Robinson and 7 R Farm Company, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112375","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Robinson and 7 R Farm Company appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Hoeman Capital Management (HCM) for breach of an agreement to pay consulting fees. Robinson and the Farm argued the judgment was void due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court agreed, finding that Robinson's minimal contacts with Missouri did not satisfy the long-arm statute's \"transaction of business\" prong, and the breach of contract action did not arise out of those contacts. The court vacated the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hoeman-capital-management-respondent-v-david-robinson-and-7-r-farm-compan-112375","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":36,"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:ed112984:2025-06-10","opinionId":"88ce913f-2132-5f95-ac9e-a4f85899d6ba","slug":"sean-dougherty-appellant-v-coppergate-commons-condominium-association-res-112984","caseName":"Sean Dougherty, Appellant, vs. Coppergate Commons Condominium Association, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112984","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sean Dougherty appealed the trial court's judgment striking his pleadings and entering a default judgment in favor of Coppergate Commons Condominium Association as a sanction for his repeated failure to comply with discovery orders. Dougherty also challenged the award of attorneys' fees and the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions or the award of attorneys' fees. The court also granted Coppergate's motion for appellate attorneys' fees and remanded for a determination of the amount.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sean-dougherty-appellant-v-coppergate-commons-condominium-association-res-112984","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113090:2025-06-03","opinionId":"0138a416-4ba6-5c97-a752-a28f27443785","slug":"ashley-dill-respondent-v-jason-hale-and-autocenters-bonne-terre-llc-appel-113090","caseName":"Ashley Dill, Respondent, vs. Jason Hale and Autocenters Bonne Terre, LLC., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113090","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashley Dill sued Jason Hale and AutoCenters Bonne Terre, LLC, alleging claims related to a vehicle purchase. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreement lacked consideration and was not signed by all parties. The appellate court affirmed the denial of arbitration as to Defendant Hale, but reversed the denial as to Defendant AutoCenters. The court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration from the contemporaneously signed installment contract and was enforceable against AutoCenters despite its lack of signature on the arbitration agreement itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221140","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ashley-dill-respondent-v-jason-hale-and-autocenters-bonne-terre-llc-appel-113090","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:ed112810:2025-06-03","opinionId":"4e5dc0d4-79ba-56b6-a7d2-11000cf991d1","slug":"hazelcrest-i-ii-condominium-association-appellant-v-7520-hazel-crest-llc-112810","caseName":"Hazelcrest I & II Condominium Association, Appellant, v. 7520 Hazel Crest LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112810","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hazelcrest I & II Condominium Association obtained a default judgment against 7520 Hazel Crest LLC for unpaid assessments. The circuit court subsequently granted 7520 Hazel Crest LLC's motion to set aside the default judgment. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed, holding that 7520 Hazel Crest LLC failed to prove good cause for setting aside the default judgment under Rule 74.05(d) because merely alleging a registered agent failed to provide notice, without further explanation, is insufficient to show a good faith mistake rather than recklessness.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221139","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hazelcrest-i-ii-condominium-association-appellant-v-7520-hazel-crest-llc-112810","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":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:wd87448:2025-06-03","opinionId":"1b6d29ba-7aa6-5b45-9c61-7b53ee61bf29","slug":"dana-casnocha-jones-v-state-board-of-nursing-d87448","caseName":"Dana Casnocha-Jones vs. State Board of Nursing","caseNumber":"WD87448","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Dana Casnocha-Jones's nursing license was revoked by the State Board of Nursing, but the trial court reversed that decision and ordered a probated license. Casnocha-Jones then sought attorney's fees, which the trial court partially granted, awarding fees incurred during the Board's appeal. The Board appealed this award of attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Casnocha-Jones had waived her right to attorney's fees in a settlement agreement and that her application for fees was untimely.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","contracts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221087","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-casnocha-jones-v-state-board-of-nursing-d87448","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38656:2025-05-28","opinionId":"de62c3ff-1f11-59bf-9a5e-8a575687b6a6","slug":"james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","caseName":"JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nCITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38656","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 702, sued the City of Poplar Bluff for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. They claimed the City breached the agreement by not hiring Union member Quinton Tillman for a Water Plant Operator position, instead hiring Daniel Sparks. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Sparks was an employee covered by the agreement and thus Tillman was not the only eligible internal applicant, negating the claim for job preference.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112718:2025-05-27","opinionId":"ae14b4b9-37f4-5b14-a073-c12170fde142","slug":"delphi-management-solutions-inc-plaintiffrespondent-v-carl-bearden-et-al-112718","caseName":"Delphi Management Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Carl Bearden, et al., Defendants, AJO MO, LLC and Hi-Rise, LLC, Proposed Intervenors/Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112718","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"AJO MO, LLC and Hi-Rise, LLC, proposed intervenors, appealed a consent judgment between Delphi Management Solutions, Inc. and Heya Retail, LLC, concerning the ownership and management of marijuana dispensaries, and also appealed the denial of their motion to intervene. The appellate court dismissed the appeal regarding the consent judgment, finding the proposed intervenors lacked standing as they were not parties to the judgment and were not aggrieved. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, noting the appellants failed to provide a sufficient record for review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220920","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/delphi-management-solutions-inc-plaintiffrespondent-v-carl-bearden-et-al-112718","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38745:2025-05-15","opinionId":"b1b03bdb-f899-5e06-b8f6-346cf46d07cd","slug":"janette-whitlow-appellant-v-curtis-whitlow-twajana-moss-and-tammy-henry-r-d38745","caseName":"JANETTE WHITLOW, Appellant\nv.\nCURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38745","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janette Whitlow sued Curtis Whitlow, Twajana Moss, and Tammy Henry for unjust enrichment, alleging they were enriched by her contributions to the acquisition of a family farm. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondents, concluding Whitlow's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the respondents failed to properly plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer as required by Rule 55.08.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/janette-whitlow-appellant-v-curtis-whitlow-twajana-moss-and-tammy-henry-r-d38745","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":"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:sd38515:2025-05-13","opinionId":"aaf3f0c0-52d6-5768-a79b-1dd66f1045d6","slug":"colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-plaintiffs-appellants-v-granite-sprin-d38515","caseName":"COLLEEN EIKMEIER and WILLIAM S. LOVE, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nGRANITE SPRINGS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38515","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love purchased a lot in a subdivision with a covenant prohibiting solar panels. After a new statute (Section 442.404.3) was enacted, they sought to install solar panels, but the homeowners' association rejected their request based on the pre-existing covenant. Plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment, arguing the statute allowed them to install the panels. The circuit court ruled that the statute applied prospectively only, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the circuit court's declaration of law.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-plaintiffs-appellants-v-granite-sprin-d38515","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:wd87304:2025-04-29","opinionId":"01ae60e8-df08-597f-9aaf-f8636de90478","slug":"rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","caseName":"RFJ Auto Properties, LLC\nvs. \nKnipp Real Estate, LLC, Knipp Real Estate II, LLC\nFletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC\nCorwin Imports of Jefferson City, III, Timothy F. Corwin","caseNumber":"WD87304","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Fletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to RFJ Auto Properties, LLC, in a dispute over a commercial lease's termination date. The trial court had certified its judgment as final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). The appellate court, however, determined it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court's judgment was not a final, appealable judgment, as it did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220042","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","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:wd86858:2025-04-29","opinionId":"460d44bc-96b6-5c2a-9c0d-1ac928adec2b","slug":"reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","caseName":"Reyna Hotel Corporation, et al. \nvs. \nLotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al.","caseNumber":"WD86858","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Reyna Hotel Corporation and North Kansas City Hotel Corporation (Plaintiff Hotels) sued Lotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. (Defendants) for tortious interference with a business expectancy and conversion after Defendants, managing a Kansas City homeless housing program, refused to pay Plaintiff Hotels' invoices. A jury found for Plaintiff Hotels, and the trial court entered judgment. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the judgment on the tortious interference claim and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendants' agency affirmative defense. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","other","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","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:wd87406:2025-04-22","opinionId":"9d900eb3-606b-5ea9-9f93-dbaf54e04b96","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-v-lora-martinez-d87406","caseName":"In Re the Matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., Minors; Alicia Smith\nvs.\nLora Martinez","caseNumber":"WD87406","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights with two children adopted by Lora Martinez, based on a settlement agreement. Martinez appealed the circuit court's judgment, arguing Smith lacked standing under § 452.375.5(5) and that she had not consented to the entry of judgment. The appellate court affirmed both the judgment awarding visitation and the judgment granting Smith's family access motion. The court held that Smith had standing because adoption proceedings do not determine child custody, and Martinez's agreement to the visitation schedule at the time of submission was binding despite later objections.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-v-lora-martinez-d87406","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"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:sc100608:2025-03-18","opinionId":"1935ac89-d69a-5498-9281-b818a0944768","slug":"connie-lange-appellant-v-gmt-auto-sales-inc-respondent-100608","caseName":"Connie Lange, Appellant, vs. GMT Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100608","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Connie Lange appealed the circuit court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in her favor and overruling her motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration. Lange argued that GMT Auto Sales, Inc. (GMT) lacked the right to compel arbitration after assigning the contract, waived its right by filing a motion to dismiss, and that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that GMT retained its right to arbitrate, did not waive it by filing a motion to dismiss before its responsive pleading, and Lange's unenforceability argument was unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218516","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/connie-lange-appellant-v-gmt-auto-sales-inc-respondent-100608","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"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":"moappsd:sd38561:2025-03-17","opinionId":"485a2672-eb24-5a22-8736-a0d40e1a89fa","slug":"marla-housley-and-heath-housley-plaintiffs-respondents-v-autohaus-llc-and-d38561","caseName":"MARLA HOUSLEY and HEATH HOUSLEY, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nAUTOHAUS, L.L.C., and AUTO SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Respondents-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38561","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Marla and Heath Housley sued Autohaus, L.L.C. and Auto Services Company, Inc. after a vehicle protection plan claim was denied. Appellants moved to compel arbitration almost a year into litigation, which the trial court denied. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants waived their right to compel arbitration by substantially participating in the litigation.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marla-housley-and-heath-housley-plaintiffs-respondents-v-autohaus-llc-and-d38561","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":"mo:sc100512:2025-03-04","opinionId":"73731faf-5735-5c83-b90d-345d6b3332d8","slug":"presley-karlin-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-springfiel-100512","caseName":"Presley Karlin, Respondent, vs. UATP Springfield, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Springfield, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100512","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Presley Karlin sued Urban Air Springfield for negligence after sustaining injuries at its trampoline park. Urban Air moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Karlin's mother, which the circuit court overruled. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case with instructions to sustain Urban Air's motion to compel arbitration. The Court held that challenges to the validity or scope of an arbitration agreement, when it contains a delegation clause and the challenges are not specific to that clause, must be resolved by an arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/presley-karlin-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-springfiel-100512","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100727:2025-03-04","opinionId":"3e857d41-07b6-589d-b797-c83c01a85d00","slug":"in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","caseName":"In re: Paul Eric Petruska, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100727","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Paul Eric Petruska violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended an indefinite suspension with a three-year stay and probation, which Petruska accepted, but OCDC rejected. The Missouri Supreme Court, conducting a de novo review, found Petruska violated Rules 4-1.2(a), 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-3.3, and 4-8.4(c) by settling a case without client authority, misrepresenting facts to the court and clients, and engaging in dishonest conduct. The Court determined disbarment was the baseline sanction under ABA Standard 6.11, making Petruska ineligible for probation, and ultimately imposed an indefinite suspension with no leave to apply for reinstatement for three years.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","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":"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112630:2025-02-25","opinionId":"7380274d-f58c-53b3-9aec-bce665196c84","slug":"first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","caseName":"First Community Credit Union v. Samuel Rowley, Sheryl A. Rowley, Appellants, and Archdiocese of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112630","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Samuel and Sheryl Rowley appealed a summary judgment ruling that a durable power of attorney (DPOA) did not authorize them to designate themselves as payable-on-death (POD) beneficiaries of Thomas L. Nicastro's financial accounts. Nicastro had previously designated the Archdiocese of St. Louis as the sole beneficiary. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, strictly construing the DPOA and finding that its language did not explicitly authorize the Rowleys to engage in self-dealing by naming themselves as beneficiaries.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112408:2025-02-11","opinionId":"a5390351-818b-53d1-95b7-ae5ffb2ca9a2","slug":"mike-abduhamed-appellantcross-respondent-v-carol-house-furniture-inc-resp-112408","caseName":"Mike Abduhamed, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Carol House Furniture, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112408","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mike Abuhamdeh, a former sales representative, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding unpaid sales commissions from Carol House Furniture, Inc. Abuhamdeh argued the trial court erred by not imposing a mandatory statutory penalty under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) for untimely commission payments. Carol House cross-appealed, asserting its compensation plan did not conflict with the MMPA regarding post-termination commissions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Agreement conflicted with the MMPA, but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to apply the statutory penalty for untimely payment of commissions.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mike-abduhamed-appellantcross-respondent-v-carol-house-furniture-inc-resp-112408","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":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38421:2025-01-22","opinionId":"f7e1a5f1-71a9-554b-930c-db50f0d955db","slug":"mike-seitz-appellant-v-advanced-welding-manufacturing-inc-dba-advanced-we-d38421","caseName":"MIKE SEITZ, Appellant\nv.\nADVANCED WELDING & MANUFACTURING, INC., D/B/A ADVANCED WELDING & ORNAMENTAL IRON, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38421","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Mike Seitz sued Advanced Welding & Manufacturing, Inc. for breach of contract and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) regarding a gate installation, while Advanced Welding counterclaimed for the unpaid balance and attorney's fees under the Private Prompt Pay Act. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Advanced Welding on all claims, awarding attorney's fees and interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Seitz's arguments regarding attorney's fees and UCC preemption were not preserved for review, and his MMPA claims failed due to reliance on factual inferences contrary to the judgment without following the proper analytical framework for challenging factual findings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mike-seitz-appellant-v-advanced-welding-manufacturing-inc-dba-advanced-we-d38421","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":"moappwd:wd86760:2025-01-21","opinionId":"3872c5de-0de4-5936-9ffd-01c9f16f8250","slug":"teri-a-deffenbaugh-and-kelly-r-forck-v-david-kelly-burre-trustee-of-the-d-d86760","caseName":"Teri A. Deffenbaugh and Kelly R. Forck\nvs.\nDavid Kelly Burre, Trustee of the David Kelly Burre Revocable Trust","caseNumber":"WD86760","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Teri Deffenbaugh and Kelly Forck sued David Kelly Burre, Trustee, for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract. The trial court denied specific performance, finding the property description indefinite and that Deffenbaugh failed to satisfy a condition precedent regarding access rights. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Deffenbaugh did not perform his contractual obligation to obtain necessary access and could not unilaterally waive this condition. The court also granted Burre's request for appellate attorney's fees and remanded for their calculation.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/teri-a-deffenbaugh-and-kelly-r-forck-v-david-kelly-burre-trustee-of-the-d-d86760","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":"moappd:ed112664:2025-01-21","opinionId":"4ffc330b-31c2-593f-9d24-43ac76f89879","slug":"patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","caseName":"Patrick Carron, Appellant, v. Mark Schabbing & Darryl Green, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112664","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Patrick Carron sued Mark Schabbing and Darryl Green for tortious interference with a contract and business expectancy after his employment with Perry County Memorial Hospital was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for Schabbing and Green, finding they were released by a General Release and Waiver Carron signed as part of his separation agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Respondents were members of a \"related company\" to the Hospital, the Perryville Family Care Clinic, and thus were included in the scope of the release.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216876","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","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":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112681:2025-01-21","opinionId":"ecb89b5d-2f40-5289-9dd2-4a14d4ec832a","slug":"4021-iowa-llc-respondent-v-ka-delmar-property-llc-et-al-appellant-112681","caseName":"4021 Iowa, LLC, Respondent, vs. K&A Delmar Property, LLC, et al., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112681","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"K&A Delmar Property, LLC (Appellants) appealed the circuit court's reinstatement of a default judgment in favor of 4021 Iowa, LLC (Iowa), which arose from a breach of contract dispute. The circuit court had previously set aside the default judgment, but the appellate court reversed that decision and remanded for reinstatement. On this appeal, Appellants challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction to award damages exceeding the pleadings, the sufficiency of evidence for attorneys' fees, and the post-judgment interest accrual date. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, denying all three points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/4021-iowa-llc-respondent-v-ka-delmar-property-llc-et-al-appellant-112681","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":"moappsd:sd38278:2024-12-31","opinionId":"5822f50e-fe30-5721-a463-5ccffd404e1e","slug":"mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","caseName":"MARK BECKMANN, CHERYL BECKMANN, WILLIAM ANGELL, SHERRY ANGELL, MARK EDGECOMB, MIKE EDGECOMB, GARY GARNER, KATHY GARDNER, TOM RUTLEDGE, TARA RUTLEDGE, JERRY MAIER, BRENDA MAIER, MARK HAUPT, PAMELA HAUPT, JEFFREY ALAN PORTER, and JODY PORTER, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Appellants\nv.\nJOY PHILLIPS and DANIEL JOSEPH GARDNER, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38278","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, property owners in an unrecorded development, sought to enjoin Respondents, other property owners, from constructing a community boat dock and using their property for parking, arguing Cherry Lane was a private road and deed restrictions prohibited such use. The trial court denied Appellants' claims and granted Respondents' counterclaim, declaring Cherry Lane a public road. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Respondents had standing to assert common law dedication, the deed restrictions did not clearly prohibit the intended parking use, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing late-disclosed witnesses to testify in the bench trial.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":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:ed112584:2024-12-24","opinionId":"72901465-bf78-548b-8b00-d94182048e3e","slug":"andrew-niemeier-respondent-v-charles-russell-williams-iii-and-green-peak-112584","caseName":"Andrew Niemeier, Respondent, v. Charles Russell Williams, III and Green Peak Capital Partners, LLC, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112584","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Andrew Niemeier sued Charles Russell Williams III and Green Peak Capital Partners, LLC, alleging breach of an oral contract and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fifty percent ownership stake in Green Peak. The jury found in Niemeier's favor on both claims, and the circuit court awarded damages and specific performance. The appellate court reversed the judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding no mutual agreement on material terms, and vacated the associated damages and specific performance. However, the court affirmed the judgment on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, concluding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an actionable misrepresentation, reasonable reliance, and intent not to perform.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215957","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-niemeier-respondent-v-charles-russell-williams-iii-and-green-peak-112584","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":"moappd:ed112639:2024-12-24","opinionId":"90c9b95e-0a87-5a74-ab6c-31aaeb8c9594","slug":"the-wrecking-crew-inc-appellant-v-ohm-hotel-group-llc-et-al-respondents-112639","caseName":"The Wrecking Crew, Inc., Appellant, v. OHM Hotel Group, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112639","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Wrecking Crew, Inc. appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of OHM Hotel Group, LLC, et al., concerning a dispute over payment for demolition work. The central issue revolved around the authenticity of a waiver and release document, which The Wrecking Crew's president initially admitted signing but later, supported by a handwriting expert's affidavit, claimed was forged. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that the contradictory evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the waiver's legitimacy, which could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215958","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-wrecking-crew-inc-appellant-v-ohm-hotel-group-llc-et-al-respondents-112639","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112340:2024-12-24","opinionId":"79529cd8-cd5d-592f-8f85-6d62b33d36af","slug":"physicians-choice-wellness-development-llc-appellant-v-mark-r-devore-resp-112340","caseName":"Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Mark R. Devore, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112340","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its petition for damages against Mark Devore, the St. Louis County Collector of Revenue, for allegedly miscalculating tax sale redemption costs. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the tort claims were barred by official immunity and the public duty doctrine because the calculation of redemption costs was a discretionary act. The court also found the promissory estoppel claim failed as it sought monetary damages, and the dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion given multiple opportunities to amend.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","contracts","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215956","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/physicians-choice-wellness-development-llc-appellant-v-mark-r-devore-resp-112340","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38271:2024-12-20","opinionId":"2b57ddc0-4752-552f-9756-5b14abc1958c","slug":"anthony-leciejewski-and-susan-leciejewski-trustees-uta-of-anthony-lecieje-d38271","caseName":"ANTHONY LECIEJEWSKI and SUSAN LECIEJEWSKI, Trustees UTA of ANTHONY LECIEJEWSKI and SUSAN LECIEJEWSKI REVOKEABLE LIVING TRUST dated January 6, 2016, Appellants\nvs.\nT & C CUSTOM HOMES, INC., and B & G DRAFTING, INC., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38271","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Anthony and Susan Leciejewski, as trustees, sued T & C Custom Homes, Inc., and B & G Drafting, Inc., for damages related to a custom home construction project. The circuit court enforced an oral settlement agreement reached during mediation, dismissing the Leciejewskis' claims. On appeal, the Leciejewskis argued the agreement was invalid because it was not in writing as required by Rule 17 and because there was no meeting of the minds. The Southern District affirmed, holding that Rule 17 did not apply because the Christian County Circuit Court had not formally adopted it for civil cases, and that substantial evidence supported the finding of a meeting of the minds.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-leciejewski-and-susan-leciejewski-trustees-uta-of-anthony-lecieje-d38271","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":"moappwd:parent-215514","opinionId":"af71247d-2f10-551e-aafc-3054b97d7b32","slug":"veeral-bhoot-do-et-al-v-701-709-ne-woods-chapel-road-llc-et-al-d86805","caseName":"Veeral Bhoot, D.O., Et al.\nvs.\n701-709 NE Woods Chapel Road, LLC, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86805","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, including Veeral Bhoot, appealed the denial of specific performance and the limited damages awarded for breach of contracts to sell real estate and medical equipment. Cross-Appellants challenged the trial court's award of attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Appellants' \"unclean hands\" precluded specific performance and that the challenge to the jury's damages verdict was unpreserved. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the attorney fee award.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/veeral-bhoot-do-et-al-v-701-709-ne-woods-chapel-road-llc-et-al-d86805","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86868:2024-12-17","opinionId":"778eccd2-0860-5e93-8437-9c6cd15c3e43","slug":"derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","caseName":"Derek Fuemmeler, Et al.\nvs.\nMike and Mark Farms, LLC, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86868","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tenants Derek Fuemmeler and Steven Cleeton appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Mike and Mark Farms, LLC, et al. (Tregnago Defendants) and John and Cindy Winkleblack (Winkleblacks), and the denial of their own motion for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether two farm leases satisfied the statute of frauds, Section 432.010, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the leases provided sufficient means to identify the properties with reasonable certainty, thereby satisfying the statute of frauds. The court also noted that summary judgment was improperly granted to non-moving parties.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38046:2024-12-16","opinionId":"067f8e1f-6eae-5a46-abab-0c0ae1ef2384","slug":"robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","caseName":"ROBERT L. HALL, M.D., Appellant\nvs.\nUNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38046","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Hall, M.D., appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and denial of his own motion for summary judgment. Dr. Hall sought lifetime total disability benefits under a policy rider, arguing he was \"totally disabled\" prior to his age-60 policy anniversary, the policy's definition of total disability was ambiguous, or a genuine dispute of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Dr. Hall's arguments regarding policy interpretation or the existence of a factual dispute.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100574:2024-12-10","opinionId":"ed4f33f0-4a0a-5216-a24f-c9572f1b45d4","slug":"millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","caseName":"Millstone Property Owners Association, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, Fogarty Farms, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100574","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Millstone Property Owners Association sued Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis for breach of subdivision restrictions, including failure to pay assessments and maintain lots. Nithyananda counterclaimed, arguing that developer rights were not properly transferred to Fogarty Farms (who created the association) and that the restrictions were abandoned. Nithyananda also challenged the transfer of a common lake lot. The circuit court found developer rights were transferred, restrictions were not abandoned, Nithyananda must comply, and the lake lot remained common ground, awarding attorney fees to the association. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment in all respects.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","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":"moappd:ed112829:2024-11-26","opinionId":"f1383f80-91b2-5c45-a56b-3e277fefb58b","slug":"stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","caseName":"Stacy A. Albright, Appellant, v. Union Electric Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112829","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacy Albright sued Union Electric Company for negligence and breach of contract after a fire damaged his home, alleging UE failed to turn off electrical power as requested. The circuit court granted summary judgment for UE, concluding Albright could not provide substantial evidence that electricity caused the fire. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that UE's summary judgment motion failed to meet its initial burden under Rule 74.04 by merely reciting Albright's petition allegations and an interrogatory response, thus the burden never shifted to Albright.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214924","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","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:parent-214953","opinionId":"7e454faa-c855-5337-b05d-bc6eb2eda13c","slug":"americredit-financial-services-inc-dba-gm-financial-appellantcross-respon-112095","caseName":"Americredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Nicole M. Bell, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112095","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial, appealed the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Nicole M. Bell on her consumer class action counterclaim and GM Financial's deficiency claim. Bell cross-appealed the partial grant of summary judgment in favor of GM Financial on her counterclaim. The appellate court held that Bell and the class members had standing to bring the counterclaim, but found that GM Financial did not commit the alleged Uniform Commercial Code violations in its pre-sale and post-sale notices. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment in Bell's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/americredit-financial-services-inc-dba-gm-financial-appellantcross-respon-112095","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112669:2024-11-26","opinionId":"fbc37eb9-1a4a-599f-b146-48544e423c77","slug":"diane-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-112669","caseName":"Diane Maune, as personal representative of the estate of Neil J. Maune, Respondent, v. Marcus Raichle, Jr. and The Maune Raichle Law Firm, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112669","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants Marcus Raichle, Jr. and The Maune Raichle Law Firm appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The underlying dispute involved claims by the Estate of Neil J. Maune against MR Law regarding life insurance proceeds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that MR Law could not compel arbitration because it was not a party to the operating agreement containing the arbitration clause, and the exceptions for non-signatories did not apply.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214922","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/diane-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-112669","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":"moappd:ed112169:2024-11-19","opinionId":"c0c95a70-27c1-59b1-929d-2201f6e1e499","slug":"denny-labantschnig-respondent-v-royal-gate-inc-et-al-appellants-112169","caseName":"Denny Labantschnig, Respondent, vs. Royal Gate, Inc. et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112169","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dr. Cyrus Alizadeh appealed a trial court judgment finding him liable on a personal guaranty for a loan obtained by Royal Gate, Inc. from Denny Labantschnig. Alizadeh challenged the interpretation of the guaranty, the effect of a repayment extension, the tender and consideration of the guaranty, and the award of attorneys' fees. The Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, finding the guaranty unambiguously incorporated the underlying agreement and that Alizadeh was not discharged from liability. The court also granted Labantschnig's motion for appellate attorneys' fees and remanded for their determination.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/denny-labantschnig-respondent-v-royal-gate-inc-et-al-appellants-112169","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":"mo:sc100461:2024-11-19","opinionId":"f02376c2-a5b8-5776-b4c8-069486a63682","slug":"yolanda-bell-appellant-v-shelter-general-insurance-company-respondent-100461","caseName":"Yolanda Bell, Appellant, vs. Shelter General Insurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100461","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Yolanda Bell filed a class action lawsuit against Shelter General Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract for failing to include taxes and fees for a replacement vehicle in its payments for total loss claims. The circuit court dismissed Bell's petition without prejudice, concluding she failed to state a claim because she did not allege she had actually incurred these costs. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bell's petition adequately pleaded a breach of contract claim, and that the definitive interpretation of the insurance policy was premature at the motion to dismiss stage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/yolanda-bell-appellant-v-shelter-general-insurance-company-respondent-100461","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":"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-214206","opinionId":"d796034a-c0e3-5504-8285-f085a71fc710","slug":"west-39th-street-llc-v-lina-llc-d86445","caseName":"West 39th Street, LLC\nvs.\nLina, LLC","caseNumber":"WD86445","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lina, LLC, a tenant operating a pizza restaurant, appealed a declaratory judgment that a \"Lease Addendum\" granting it perpetual renewal options was void and unenforceable. The trial court had found the addendum void because it provided for perpetual renewal options and violated the rule against restraints on alienation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that perpetual lease renewals are enforceable in Missouri when clearly expressed, and that the rule against restraints on alienation does not apply to enforceable perpetual leases.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/west-39th-street-llc-v-lina-llc-d86445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38280:2024-10-30","opinionId":"d5850096-a3f0-5df8-a428-94fcf50cadfa","slug":"thomas-j-brown-iii-trustee-of-thomas-j-brown-iii-revocable-trust-uad-may-d38280","caseName":"THOMAS J. BROWN, III, Trustee of Thomas J. Brown, III, Revocable Trust U/A/D May 13, 2021, Respondent\nvs.\nDARREN and DAPHNE JERNIGAN, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38280","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Darren and Daphne Jernigan (Buyers) appealed a circuit court's judgment of specific performance, which ordered them to purchase a property from Thomas J. Brown, III, Trustee (Seller), following their breach of a real estate purchase agreement. The Buyers argued the circuit court misapplied the law by awarding specific performance when an adequate remedy at law (liquidated damages) existed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the award of specific performance, and remanded the case for the circuit court to determine and award the Seller's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred on appeal.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-j-brown-iii-trustee-of-thomas-j-brown-iii-revocable-trust-uad-may-d38280","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:sd37750:2024-10-30","opinionId":"94dd95e8-d82a-5a23-b56f-28c7313c825c","slug":"thayer-farm-centermeyer-feed-plaintiff-respondent-v-don-bush-sr-jalonne-b-d37750","caseName":"THAYER FARM CENTER/MEYER FEED, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv\nDON BUSH, SR., JALONNE BUSH, DON BUSH, JR., and SALLY BUSH, Defendants-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37750","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Thayer Farm Center/Meyer Feed sued Don Bush, Sr., Jalonne Bush, and Don Bush, Jr. for unpaid goods and services. The trial court entered judgment for Thayer on an \"action on account\" theory, despite Thayer's petition pleading an \"account stated\" theory. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court misapplied the law by entering judgment on an unpleaded theory over timely objection. Furthermore, the court found that Thayer failed to prove its pleaded account-stated claim, which required an unconditional agreement to pay a specific amount. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendants.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thayer-farm-centermeyer-feed-plaintiff-respondent-v-don-bush-sr-jalonne-b-d37750","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38312:2024-10-29","opinionId":"2ccaacad-3ff3-551c-93c7-d948fee5e226","slug":"in-re-robert-j-branson-petitioner-v-michele-buckner-warden-south-central-d38312","caseName":"IN RE ROBERT J. BRANSON, Petitioner\nv.\nMICHELE BUCKNER, WARDEN, SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38312","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert J. Branson pleaded guilty to first-degree child molestation and was sentenced to life imprisonment, though the State only alleged facts supporting a class B felony, which carried a maximum of 15 years. Branson sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The appellate court granted the writ, vacating Branson's convictions and sentences, and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the illegal sentence constituted a sentencing defect and a material mistake in the plea agreement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-robert-j-branson-petitioner-v-michele-buckner-warden-south-central-d38312","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"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:ed112371:2024-10-22","opinionId":"5c708fc0-e64d-54d0-87ff-1fe0a0d774dc","slug":"jason-wolk-et-al-appellants-v-grinnell-mutual-resinsurance-company-respon-112371","caseName":"Jason Wolk, et al., Appellants, v. Grinnell Mutual Resinsurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112371","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jason Wolk and Jeffrey Meyer, who were injured while working, disputed with Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company over a workers' compensation subrogation lien. After a personal injury suit and a subsequent settlement agreement, Appellants sought a declaratory judgment to interpret Section 287.150.3 and their agreement. The trial court awarded Grinnell the full amount of its lien, finding no mutual mistake in the agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, agreeing with its interpretation of the statute and declining to rescind the settlement agreement.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jason-wolk-et-al-appellants-v-grinnell-mutual-resinsurance-company-respon-112371","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":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111340:2024-10-01","opinionId":"1ba54e57-263e-5b64-b41a-91e7b6303ab3","slug":"jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","caseName":"Jon Yust, et al., Appellant, v. Fasterhouse, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111340","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Yusts and Investors Title Company appealed the trial court's orders granting a new trial on its own motion and subsequently granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for FasterHouse LLC and Rebecca Moran. The appellate court reversed the JNOV, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction after the notice of appeal was filed. It also reversed the new trial order because the trial court failed to specify the grounds for granting it, as required by Rule 78.03, and the presumption of error under Rule 84.05(c) was unrebutted. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the Yusts were awarded attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","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":"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:ed112283:2024-09-24","opinionId":"aef3d694-cb78-56ab-bd06-67a1806b6571","slug":"republic-finance-llc-respondent-v-quintin-ray-appellant-112283","caseName":"Republic Finance, LLC, Respondent, v. Quintin Ray, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112283","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Quintin Ray appealed a judgment in favor of Republic Finance, LLC, following a bench trial on a breach of contract claim. Ray argued the trial court erred by denying discovery and violating his due process rights. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding Ray's brief failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, including insufficient statement of facts, lack of record citations, deficient points relied on, and an inadequate argument section.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211938","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/republic-finance-llc-respondent-v-quintin-ray-appellant-112283","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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":"moappd:ed112575:2024-09-03","opinionId":"ce8a946b-11bc-54e9-b50c-f205fb5a9d41","slug":"bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","caseName":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112575","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, and Ricardo Farias Nicolopulos appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis regarding the termination of a lease agreement. The central issue was whether the Director of Airports had the authority under Ordinance 70909 to unilaterally terminate the lease. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the merits of the Director's authority, finding the ordinance's plain language granted such power. However, the court dismissed Appellants' remaining points on appeal due to noncompliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211078","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111788:2024-08-27","opinionId":"3e3b0561-d8ad-5f5e-9bbe-a8f97cec956a","slug":"grace-herr-ally-burke-and-majorie-alvord-respondents-v-min-zhao-appellant-111788","caseName":"Grace Herr, Ally Burke, and Majorie Alvord, Respondents, vs. Min Zhao, Appellant, Yanqun Dong, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED111788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Min Zhao and Yanqun Dong (Landlords) appealed a judgment in favor of Grace Herr, Ally Burke, and Marjorie Alvord (Tenants) on their claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of the rental agreement. The Landlords argued the trial court erroneously applied the law by basing its judgment on de minimis conditions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the conditions, including mold, leaks, live wires, and inoperable air conditioning, were not de minimis and materially affected the tenants' life, health, and safety. The court also denied the Tenants' motion to strike the Landlords' brief, opting to review the appeal on its merits despite Rule 84.04 violations.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","contracts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/grace-herr-ally-burke-and-majorie-alvord-respondents-v-min-zhao-appellant-111788","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":"moappd:ed111983:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c820cdb1-6bcc-516b-a7d2-d21aa65b4a1e","slug":"clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","caseName":"Clifton Merritt and Tammy Merritt, Appellants, vs. Kenneth Wilson and Karen Wilson, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Clifton and Tammy Merritt sued Kenneth and Karen Wilson over an appurtenant easement and alleged oral and written agreements to terminate it. The Merritts claimed an oral agreement was reached in September 2020 and a written agreement via email in February 2021. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Wilsons, finding no contract existed and the statute of frauds barred the oral agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no meeting of the minds occurred for either the oral or written agreement, and the statute of frauds applied to the purported oral contract.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","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":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:sd38381:2024-08-20","opinionId":"f9a5215b-b993-5f4d-a30b-5e6d12f1af84","slug":"sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","caseName":"SAMMY WOODS, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38381","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sammy Woods sued Trader's Insurance Company for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay after his claim for vehicle damage from an accident was denied. The insurer argued coverage was excluded under the policy's business and delivery exclusions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Woods on the breach of contract claim. The appellate court reversed, finding that Woods's use of the vehicle to transport chickens for trade constituted a \"delivery related business\" under the policy's exclusion, thus precluding coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"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":"moappd:ed112211:2024-08-13","opinionId":"aef01c74-ff91-5228-b08b-ef3572bf3d6d","slug":"jefferson-capital-systems-llc-respondent-v-stephanie-rice-appellant-112211","caseName":"Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Respondent, vs. Stephanie Rice, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112211","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC (JCAP) appealed the circuit court's denial of its amended motion to compel arbitration of Stephanie Rice's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act counterclaim. JCAP argued it had standing to enforce an arbitration agreement through a series of assignments from the original debt holder, DriveTime. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that JCAP failed to provide competent evidence to establish a valid chain of assignment of arbitration rights. The court also denied Rice's motion for damages for a frivolous appeal, concluding that JCAP's amended motion was permissible on general remand.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210300","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-capital-systems-llc-respondent-v-stephanie-rice-appellant-112211","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:ed112165:2024-08-06","opinionId":"01ba1b6c-f972-546d-a52b-f6bc05cf47ed","slug":"angela-martin-et-al-respondents-v-hw-automotive-llc-dba-hw-kia-of-west-co-112165","caseName":"Angela Martin, et al., Respondents, v. HW Automotive, LLC d/b/a HW KIA of West County, KIA America, Inc.; and Hyundai Motor America, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112165","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Consumers sued Dealers under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act after their vehicles were stolen or damaged. Dealers moved to compel arbitration, which the circuit court partially denied, compelling arbitration for some consumers but not others. The appellate court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the arbitration agreements were enforceable and delegated the determination of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration for all consumers.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210175","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-martin-et-al-respondents-v-hw-automotive-llc-dba-hw-kia-of-west-co-112165","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":"moappd:ed112162:2024-08-06","opinionId":"6d1f1ca5-4080-5700-a720-d17c68336f8d","slug":"kiara-standifer-and-quentina-tate-respondents-v-suntrup-hyundai-inc-and-h-112162","caseName":"Kiara Standifer and Quentina Tate, Respondents, v. Suntrup Hyundai, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America Corp., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112162","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Kiara Standifer and Quentina Tate, consumers who purchased Hyundai vehicles, sued Suntrup Hyundai, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America Corp. after their vehicles were stolen, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Suntrup moved to compel arbitration based on signed agreements, but the circuit court denied the motion. The appellate court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the arbitration agreements were enforceable and Suntrup had not waived its right to arbitrate, and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210174","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kiara-standifer-and-quentina-tate-respondents-v-suntrup-hyundai-inc-and-h-112162","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37679:2024-08-02","opinionId":"9e5e5eea-c550-5860-b48e-530576f67a68","slug":"roebuck-family-llc-respondent-v-plymouth-management-llc-appellant-and-reg-d37679","caseName":"ROEBUCK FAMILY, LLC, Respondent,\nv.\nPLYMOUTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant,\nand\nREGIONS BANK, INC., and MTW TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37679","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Roebuck Family, LLC, sued Plymouth Management, LLC, and Regions Bank, Inc., seeking to reform a deed of trust to include an omitted tract of land, alleging mutual mistake. The trial court found a mutual mistake and reformed the deed and a subsequent trustee's deed. On appeal, the Southern District reversed, holding that there was a lack of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding of mutual mistake, particularly regarding Plymouth's intent.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roebuck-family-llc-respondent-v-plymouth-management-llc-appellant-and-reg-d37679","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":"moappd:ed111932:2024-07-02","opinionId":"0cae8732-a0d2-5d25-bb6a-6b27a4b9ffd2","slug":"midwest-neurosurgeons-llc-et-al-appellants-v-april-m-cain-respondent-111932","caseName":"Midwest Neurosurgeons, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. April M. Cain, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111932","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Midwest Neurosurgeons, LLC, and related entities appealed a trial court judgment in favor of April Cain in an action for breach of contract, suit on account, and unjust enrichment to collect medical debt. Appellants argued the trial court erred in excluding various exhibits on grounds of business records, hearsay, and best evidence rules. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Appellants failed to preserve their points on appeal by not making offers of proof for the excluded evidence, and thus declined plain error review as no manifest injustice or outcome-determinative error was shown.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209437","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/midwest-neurosurgeons-llc-et-al-appellants-v-april-m-cain-respondent-111932","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"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":"moappd:ed111518:2024-07-02","opinionId":"aad16bfb-ad4f-59ea-b87c-cde67af602ef","slug":"deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","caseName":"Deborah Pagoria, Appellant, vs. Jerrold Pagoria, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111518","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deborah Pagoria appealed the probate court's judgment denying her claim against the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria. The probate court found that Deborah breached a settlement agreement with her ex-husband, Nick S. Pagoria, by failing to execute a beneficiary deed as required by their divorce agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because both parties mutually breached the contract, Deborah could not enforce its terms against the Estate. The court also concluded that allowing evidence of Deborah's breach was not an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"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:ed111690:2024-05-14","opinionId":"6e80c4fb-566c-5202-bcae-f8f20f5fcea1","slug":"fabius-village-mobile-home-park-llc-respondent-v-wyatt-land-holdings-llc-111690","caseName":"Fabius Village Mobile Home Park, L.L.C., Respondent, v. Wyatt Land Holdings, L.L.C., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111690","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Fabius Village Mobile Home Park (FVMH) sold property with seller financing, and Wyatt Land Holdings (Wyatt Land) provided partial financing, believing it held a first-priority lien. After a default and foreclosure, FVMH sued to quiet title and establish its vendor purchase money lien's priority. The circuit court ruled in favor of FVMH, declaring its lien had first priority and reforming a promissory note and deed of trust. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the lien priority determination or the reformation.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/fabius-village-mobile-home-park-llc-respondent-v-wyatt-land-holdings-llc-111690","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":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:wd86444:2024-04-23","opinionId":"35c39155-f0be-5c79-934a-6cb614c6a704","slug":"mphlex-llc-et-al-v-sovereign-international-inc-et-al-d86444","caseName":"MPHLEX, LLC, Et al.\nvs.\nSovereign International, INC., Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86444","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants MPHlex, LLC, Anthony Pontier, and William Hudnall appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Sovereign International, Inc., et al., on Appellants' counterclaim asserting a per se antitrust violation. The Appellants argued that a noncompete agreement, entered as part of a settlement, constituted a per se antitrust violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the noncompete agreement in this factual context was not a per se antitrust violation and required a rule of reason analysis, which Appellants failed to plead. Accordingly, the court denied Appellants' request for attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mphlex-llc-et-al-v-sovereign-international-inc-et-al-d86444","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:wd86589:2024-04-09","opinionId":"23de0dc5-e833-5ed8-8fa6-3373a3945523","slug":"jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d86589","caseName":"Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C.\nvs.\nDavid Brummett","caseNumber":"WD86589","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Brummett appealed a judgment enforcing a noncompete clause in his employment agreement with Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C. (JCMG), and awarding JCMG attorney's fees. Brummett contended the noncompete clause lacked a legitimate protectable interest, that JCMG materially breached the agreement, and that attorney's fees were improperly awarded. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding the noncompete clause enforceable and the attorney's fees properly awarded. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine the amount of attorney's fees for the current appeal.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d86589","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":"moappsd:sd37950:2024-04-02","opinionId":"ec26f97f-a1a7-5c42-bea9-c24cb6f91512","slug":"douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","caseName":"DOUGLAS NIEMUTH, and CAROL NIEMUTH, Respondents/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nDONALD GASTON, and ROUNDCOUNT RANCH, LLC, Appellants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37950","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donald Gaston and Roundcount Ranch, LLC appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Douglas and Carol Niemuth regarding a right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) in a real estate contract. The Niemuths sought to purchase a portion of a 190-acre tract, while Gaston had a bona fide offer for the entire tract. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ROFR required the Niemuths to match the terms of the bona fide offer, including the purchase of the entire tract. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Gaston and Roundcount and award Gaston attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38183:2024-03-21","opinionId":"72dcffbc-9edd-5101-97c6-ff6964290912","slug":"m-scott-montgomery-appellant-v-sherri-hopper-respondent-and-russell-turne-d38183","caseName":"M. SCOTT MONTGOMERY, Appellant\nv.\nSHERRI HOPPER, Respondent\nAnd\nRUSSELL TURNER, Appellant\nv.\nSHERRI HOPPER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38183","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-21","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants Scott Montgomery and Russell Turner sued Sherri Hopper, a Colorado resident and real estate agent, for libel in Missouri, alleging statements she made to a Colorado association of realtors were false. The circuit court dismissed their petitions for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no statutory basis under Missouri's long-arm statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hopper did not transact business, enter into contracts, or commit a tortious act in Missouri sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction for the libel claims.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/m-scott-montgomery-appellant-v-sherri-hopper-respondent-and-russell-turne-d38183","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":"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:ed111898:2024-03-12","opinionId":"8de5b571-1358-5076-a89f-fe4c13fbb0ee","slug":"steve-brown-authorized-agent-and-assignee-of-the-trustees-of-the-brown-fa-111898","caseName":"Steve Brown Authorized Agent and Assignee of the Trustees of the Brown Family Trust, Respondent, vs. Pro Basement, Inc., et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111898","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Pro Basement, Inc. and Lawrence Otte (Appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment entered against them for breach of lease and unlawful detainer. The Appellants argued the trial court abused its discretion because they presented meritorious defenses. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Appellants established a meritorious defense, which required the default judgment to be set aside.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","landlord-tenant","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206346","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steve-brown-authorized-agent-and-assignee-of-the-trustees-of-the-brown-fa-111898","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111400:2024-03-12","opinionId":"d0d6d65d-2691-5858-90c7-9aa925c50644","slug":"dennis-kallash-and-toni-kallash-respondents-v-nicole-bruner-jones-appella-111400","caseName":"Dennis Kallash and Toni Kallash, Respondents, vs. Nicole Bruner-Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111400","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dennis and Toni Kallash sought a permanent injunction against Nicole Bruner-Jones, alleging she violated subdivision restrictive covenants by installing solar panels without approval. The trial court granted the injunction, ordering the removal of the panels. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed, holding that the Kallashes lacked standing to enforce the covenants because they no longer owned any lots in the subdivision, which, under the Declaration, terminated their role as trustees.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206340","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dennis-kallash-and-toni-kallash-respondents-v-nicole-bruner-jones-appella-111400","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111765:2024-03-05","opinionId":"6d733125-4e92-5c59-960a-00c2951cd1a8","slug":"opioid-master-disbursement-trust-ii-aka-opioid-mdt-ii-appellant-v-ace-ame-111765","caseName":"Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II, a/k/a Opioid MDT II, Appellant, vs. Ace American Insurance, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111765","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II appealed the trial court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment against various insurers. The Trust sought a declaration of coverage obligations under insurance policies related to opioid mass tort claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a clear and unambiguous forum selection clause in the insurance contracts mandated litigation of disputes in England or Wales, and the Trust failed to show the clause was unfair or unreasonable.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206140","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/opioid-master-disbursement-trust-ii-aka-opioid-mdt-ii-appellant-v-ace-ame-111765","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"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:ed110871:2024-03-05","opinionId":"e321bf1d-5b45-5775-9c4a-2593f226f5da","slug":"millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-110871","caseName":"Millstone Property Owners Association, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Fogerty Farms, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110871","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, owner of three lots in the Millstone subdivision, appealed a judgment concerning its non-conforming use of a lot, unpaid assessments, and developer rights. Fogarty Farms and the Millstone Property Owners Association (MPOA) cross-appealed regarding the voiding of a lake lot transfer and attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on developer rights, the attorneys' fees award, and the voiding of the lake lot transfer based on promissory estoppel. However, it reversed the injunction concerning lot fourteen, holding that the single-family dwelling restriction was waived for that lot due to prior widespread disregard.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-110871","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":"moappd:ed111743:2024-03-05","opinionId":"50666780-3545-504b-bed0-f8e34ae00137","slug":"richard-p-riney-appellant-v-margaret-m-riney-respondent-111743","caseName":"Richard P. Riney, Appellant, vs. Margaret M. Riney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111743","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Husband appealed the Family Court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration in a dissolution of marriage case, arguing an arbitrator, not the court, should determine the conscionability of their antenuptial agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act, the Family Court retains its statutory authority to determine the conscionability of such agreements as a ground for contract revocation. The court distinguished cases governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, which would delegate such issues to an arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206138","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-p-riney-appellant-v-margaret-m-riney-respondent-111743","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"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:ed111680:2024-02-27","opinionId":"fe9b94b7-5c8a-5b01-a49b-b2594c8c0dfd","slug":"mccann-concrete-products-inc-respondent-v-raineri-construction-llc-appell-111680","caseName":"McCann Concrete Products, Inc., Respondent, v. Raineri Construction, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111680","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Raineri Construction, LLC appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute with McCann Concrete Products, Inc. The trial court had denied the motion because the contract lacked a notice statement required by Section 435.460, RSMo. The appellate court reversed, holding that Section 435.460 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the contract involved interstate commerce and invoked the FAA. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mccann-concrete-products-inc-respondent-v-raineri-construction-llc-appell-111680","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":"moappwd:wd85947:2024-02-20","opinionId":"b3d4c512-0025-589f-b2f6-3b20c45a3bd2","slug":"rose-briscoe-jonathan-sternberg-and-william-bird-v-law-office-of-joseph-a-d85947","caseName":"Rose Briscoe, Jonathan Sternberg and William Bird\nvs. \nLaw Office of Joseph A. Morrey and Presley & Presley, L.L.C.","caseNumber":"WD85947","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, three law firms and an attorney, appealed the circuit court's judgment allocating attorneys' fees from a settlement in a bad faith case. They contended the court misapplied the law by denying fees absent a contingency contract, failed to find they proved the reasonable value of their services in quantum meruit, and erred in finding one attorney's contract did not extend to the bad faith case. The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court properly considered quantum meruit but determined appellants failed to prove the reasonable value of their services, and that the contracts were satisfied by a prior settlement.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205636","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-briscoe-jonathan-sternberg-and-william-bird-v-law-office-of-joseph-a-d85947","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":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:sd37699:2024-02-20","opinionId":"1c2d1b1f-b71d-5066-8b18-4da8b60b2c1e","slug":"presley-karlin-plaintiff-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-d37699","caseName":"PRESLEY KARLIN, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nUATP SPRINGFIELD, LLC d/b/a URBAN AIR SPRINGFIELD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37699","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Presley Karlin sued Urban Air Springfield for negligence after sustaining injuries at its facility. Urban Air appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration, arguing Karlin was bound by a release signed by his mother. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the release, which contained the arbitration clause, was only valid for the day it was signed and did not extend to subsequent visits. Therefore, no valid arbitration agreement existed at the time of Karlin's injury.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/presley-karlin-plaintiff-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-d37699","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99966:2024-02-14","opinionId":"8deebeb9-8cd8-5462-bcc0-1d048b5fb281","slug":"planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-et-al-respondents-v-robert-knod-c99966","caseName":"Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, et al., Respondents, vs. Robert Knodell, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99966","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-02-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Planned Parenthood sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the State, challenging House Bill No. 3014, an appropriation bill that purported to eliminate Medicaid funding for abortion providers and their affiliates. Planned Parenthood alleged HB 3014 violated the single subject rule and the equal protection clause of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court ruled for Planned Parenthood on both claims and enjoined the State. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment because the State failed to appeal the equal protection claim, which provided an independent legal basis for the circuit court's decision.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","administrative-law","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-et-al-respondents-v-robert-knod-c99966","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":"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:sd37849:2024-01-25","opinionId":"88125a34-b733-5b54-abba-b7cf146258a3","slug":"stephanie-maxine-stenger-fka-stephanie-stenger-montgomery-petitioner-resp-d37849","caseName":"STEPHANIE MAXINE STENGER, f/k/a Stephanie Stenger Montgomery, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nMARTIN SCOTT MONTGOMERY, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37849","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Martin Montgomery (Husband) appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Stephanie Stenger (Wife). Husband sought to enforce an obligation from their 2010 dissolution judgment, which had not been revived within the statutory ten-year period. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding the contract merged into the judgment and the judgment was conclusively presumed paid under Section 516.350.1. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the survival clause in the parties' agreement did not prevent merger by judgment, and the unjust enrichment claim was also barred as it arose from the same conclusively paid judgment.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephanie-maxine-stenger-fka-stephanie-stenger-montgomery-petitioner-resp-d37849","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"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:sd37808:2024-01-16","opinionId":"35239bc6-291f-527a-981c-1b68594e0ca6","slug":"danielle-rollins-eads-appellant-v-taylor-automotive-group-llc-dba-taylor-d37808","caseName":"DANIELLE (ROLLINS) EADS, Appellant\nvs.\nTAYLOR AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, D/B/A TAYLOR CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM and TIMOTHY J. TAYLOR, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37808","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danielle Eads appealed a jury verdict in favor of Taylor Automotive Group on her claims of breach of contract, fraud, and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations. Eads raised three points on appeal concerning an edited jury instruction, the exclusion of an investigative report, and the refusal to publish an exhibit to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Eads failed to preserve her instructional error claim, did not properly preserve the exclusion of the investigative report for review, and abandoned her third point on appeal by failing to cite relevant legal authority.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danielle-rollins-eads-appellant-v-taylor-automotive-group-llc-dba-taylor-d37808","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":36,"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:ed110814:2024-01-16","opinionId":"63046cda-5f77-5eea-84d0-3f07f2f8ae10","slug":"helen-sanders-respondent-v-colleen-gould-appellant-110814","caseName":"Helen Sanders, Respondent, vs. Colleen Gould, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110814","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Helen Sanders sued her sister, Colleen Gould, for fraudulent misrepresentation after Gould purchased a house in her own name, despite allegedly promising to co-sign a loan with Sanders and later transfer title. A jury found in favor of Sanders, awarding her damages, and the trial court imposed a constructive trust ordering Gould to sell the house to Sanders. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict on fraudulent misrepresentation, finding sufficient evidence for falsity and reasonable reliance, but reversed the constructive trust judgment, holding it resulted in an impermissible double recovery for Sanders.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/helen-sanders-respondent-v-colleen-gould-appellant-110814","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37962:2024-01-09","opinionId":"d68ef87d-9037-5012-8a0d-ab1b434371b2","slug":"thomas-ash-annette-ash-andrew-ash-and-lucas-ash-plaintiffs-appellants-v-g-d37962","caseName":"THOMAS ASH, ANNETTE ASH, ANDREW ASH, and LUCAS ASH, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nGENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY of WISCONSIN, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37962","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Thomas Ash and other plaintiffs brought an equitable garnishment suit against General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, seeking to recover on a judgment they obtained against General Casualty's insured, All-Iowa Contracting Company. The circuit court ruled in favor of General Casualty, finding its policy limits for bodily injury had been exhausted by payments to other claimants. The appellate court affirmed that the bodily injury limits were exhausted. However, it reversed in part, holding that the insurer was obligated under a supplementary payments endorsement to pay court costs and post-judgment interest on the plaintiffs' judgment, but not prejudgment interest. The case was remanded for calculation of these amounts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204397","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-ash-annette-ash-andrew-ash-and-lucas-ash-plaintiffs-appellants-v-g-d37962","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":24,"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":"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37860:2024-01-08","opinionId":"0c7ef261-9afc-5998-857b-855e88482802","slug":"jal-and-jll-bnf-kayla-mason-and-kl-bnf-amanda-lewis-and-diane-lewis-campb-d37860","caseName":"J.A.L. and J.L.L. b/n/f KAYLA MASON and K.L. b/n/f AMANDA LEWIS and DIANE LEWIS-CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nKARL SCOTT LAMBERT and JOSEPH SCOTT LAMBERT, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37860","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-08","year":2024,"display_summary":"Diane Lewis-Campbell appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the apportionment of a wrongful death settlement and the payment of attorney's fees. Lewis-Campbell, the mother of the decedent, and the decedent's minor children were claimants in a $2.5 million settlement. The trial court ordered each claimant to pay their attorney's fees as contracted from their share. The appellate court affirmed, holding that section 537.095 requires payment of attorney's fees as contracted when a valid agreement exists, and does not permit modification based on Rule 4-1.5 or allow fee sharing from other claimants when they have their own counsel before the settlement judgment is rendered.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jal-and-jll-bnf-kayla-mason-and-kl-bnf-amanda-lewis-and-diane-lewis-campb-d37860","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-203855","opinionId":"7fca03cd-746a-5a58-a423-499c53cea7d8","slug":"in-the-matter-of-ashlee-nicole-huelsing-111300","caseName":"In the Matter of Ashlee Nicole Huelsing.","caseNumber":"ED111300","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"NeuroRestorative appealed the probate division's order setting aside a consent judgment that resolved claims against Tammy Huelsing, individually and as guardian/conservator for her daughter Ashlee, and as co-trustee of Ashlee's supplemental needs trust. Huelsing moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. The appellate court sustained Huelsing's motion, holding that the order setting aside the consent judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because it did not fully dispose of all issues or adjudicate the rights of all parties, as claims against Wells Fargo and reinstated claims against Huelsing remained pending. Consequently, NeuroRestorative's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate","trusts","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-ashlee-nicole-huelsing-111300","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":"mo:sc100298:2023-12-19","opinionId":"7b6324c8-ad84-53aa-82c3-30bcf10053a0","slug":"state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","caseName":"State ex rel. Tyler Technologies, Inc., Relator, v. The Honorable David P. Chamberlain, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100298","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyler Technologies, Inc., sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding with negligence claims (Counts IV and VI) in a class-action lawsuit. Property owners alleged Tyler negligently performed contractual obligations to assist Jackson County with real property assessments, resulting in illegal assessments. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Tyler owed no duty of care to the property owners due to the rule of privity, thereby entitling Tyler to dismissal of the claims.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111671:2023-12-19","opinionId":"97f1e869-826a-581f-8888-eaaf7be74f41","slug":"stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","caseName":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC, Appellant, v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111671","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging MSD breached temporary construction easements by occupying property beyond verbally represented time limits. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MSD, finding the alleged oral agreements void under Section 432.070 and barred by the parol evidence rule. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that contracts with municipal corporations must be in writing and that the written easements were completely integrated and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence of oral representations.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203699","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","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":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:wd86185:2023-12-12","opinionId":"77383452-9786-5fed-8ca7-141484ef7588","slug":"gfs-ii-llc-v-janelle-carson-d86185","caseName":"GFS, II, LLC\nvs. \nJanelle Carson","caseNumber":"WD86185","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"GFS, II, LLC (Gateway) sued Janelle Carson for defaulting on a car loan, and Carson counterclaimed alleging violations related to a defective vehicle and an extended warranty. After two years of litigation, Gateway moved to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied, finding Gateway had waived its right. The appellate court affirmed, holding that waiver-by-litigation claims are for the court to decide, not an arbitrator, and that Gateway's substantial participation in discovery and litigation, including requesting a jury trial, constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gfs-ii-llc-v-janelle-carson-d86185","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"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:wd85514:2023-12-12","opinionId":"3646e3b9-3586-5d0d-93a7-1816e48631d1","slug":"amanda-everett-v-valerie-vance-and-beverley-vance-d85514","caseName":"Amanda Everett\nvs. \nValerie Vance and Beverley Vance","caseNumber":"WD85514","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Amanda Everett sued Valerie Vance and Beverley Vance, seeking to set aside a prior consent judgment and garnishment orders, alleging they were fraudulently procured by Valerie Vance. The circuit court vacated the prior judgment, enjoined Valerie Vance, and awarded Everett damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Beverley Vance's appeal for lack of standing because claims against her were voluntarily dismissed before judgment. The court affirmed the judgment against Valerie Vance, rejecting her arguments regarding personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court's authority to entertain an independent action for fraud.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amanda-everett-v-valerie-vance-and-beverley-vance-d85514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"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"}]}]}