{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"governmental-immunity","label":"Governmental Immunity","description":null,"totalCases":164,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":9},{"year":2019,"count":24},{"year":2020,"count":21},{"year":2021,"count":22},{"year":2022,"count":24},{"year":2023,"count":17},{"year":2024,"count":25},{"year":2025,"count":21},{"year":2026,"count":1}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38943:2026-01-12","opinionId":"86c3bbfe-b6a8-5c30-96cb-abc609e0ae93","slug":"kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","caseName":"K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38943","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellants K.A.C. and Michael Crites, Jr. sued the Missouri State Highway Patrol for wrongful death after a pursued driver collided with and killed Connor Crites. The trial court granted summary judgment for MSHP, finding Appellants failed to establish proximate cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not produce sufficient facts to prove MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, consistent with Supreme Court precedent that proximate cause cannot be based on speculation in police pursuit cases.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","governmental-immunity","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","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":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-228554","opinionId":"8c9979e1-e1a5-54e6-9904-c02f6476754c","slug":"mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","caseName":"Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin\nvs.\nCity of Kearney, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin sued the City of Kearney for inverse condemnation, alleging soil erosion in their backyards due to the City's stormwater drainage system. The circuit court granted a directed verdict against Laughlin, finding no notice to the City of erosion on his property, but a jury found for the Davises and Kamms. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that Laughlin failed to prove notice, and that the Davises and Kamms properly sought damages for a partial taking, not a total taking, which was supported by the evidence. The court also affirmed its appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments regarding judgment finality and timely appeal.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87919:2025-11-25","opinionId":"33e84e13-8229-50f7-802e-1f666232ad10","slug":"tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","caseName":"Tina Hursman\nvs. \nThe City of Sedalia, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87919","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tina Hursman sued the City of Sedalia for injuries sustained after falling on a city sidewalk. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the sidewalk was not a dangerous condition and was open and obvious. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition, whether it was open and obvious, and whether the step caused Hursman's fall or the City had notice of the condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227758","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"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:parent-222933","opinionId":"5e424bb6-760f-5b83-b138-41b97347e3d5","slug":"louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","caseName":"Louis Jones, et al. \nvs. \nMissouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87295","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-05","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claimants, recipients of Tort Victims Compensation Fund awards, sued the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the Division of Workers' Compensation after the Division paid only 40% of their approved claims, contending the payment calculation was erroneous. The circuit court denied relief, finding the suits barred by sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively, that the calculation was proper. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's conclusions on sovereign immunity and administrative exhaustion but affirmed the judgment that the Division's payment calculation was lawful.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"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:sd38276:2025-05-14","opinionId":"eec4b38f-9027-5b57-8f68-55ccc471d43a","slug":"terry-metcalf-plaintiff-appellant-v-florence-lorene-beard-et-al-defendant-d38276","caseName":"TERRY METCALF, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nFLORENCE LORENE BEARD, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38276","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"Terry Metcalf sued four government employees in their individual and official capacities for various torts, including malicious prosecution, negligence, and tortious interference, stemming from an audit and attempted prosecution related to his service on a road district board. The trial court dismissed all claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Metcalf's claims were barred by sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine, as he failed to establish any waiver of immunity or sufficiently plead exceptions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","negligence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-metcalf-plaintiff-appellant-v-florence-lorene-beard-et-al-defendant-d38276","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100809:2025-04-29","opinionId":"e306779e-ba4c-5dbb-aeb5-607a9c93ca6c","slug":"trent-berhow-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100809","caseName":"Trent Berhow, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100809","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Trent Berhow, an incarcerated person, sued the State of Missouri for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder at Western Missouri Correctional Center. The circuit court granted the State's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Berhow's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that the one-year statute of limitations for actions against the Department of Corrections also applies to suits against the State when the Department acts as its agent, preventing circumvention of the statute.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220177","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/trent-berhow-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38532:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c5ee6ccb-03ae-5b61-be0e-0ab86237012b","slug":"robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","caseName":"ROBERT AND SUSAN FERGUSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nCITY OF SUNRISE BEACH, MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38532","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert and Susan Ferguson, along with other property owners, sued the City of Sunrise Beach for nuisance and negligence, alleging property damage from improperly treated wastewater discharged from the City's facility. The trial court denied the City's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found for the property owners. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that inverse condemnation is the exclusive remedy for property damage claims against a public entity with eminent domain authority, even when framed as tort claims. The court allowed the property owners to amend their petition to assert inverse condemnation claims.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","negligence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112792:2025-03-25","opinionId":"666acc45-1c43-5885-9dbe-0cf40320d43d","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112792","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a $250,000 settlement paid to a plaintiff for discovery misconduct by the Attorney General's office and the Board of Police Commissioners. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding it was entitled to reimbursement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the legally significant date for a SLEF claim is when the suit or claim is filed, not when the underlying conduct occurred, and the City's claim was filed after the statutory deadline for reimbursement.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100623:2025-03-18","opinionId":"a5c629a6-05d9-5b56-9a1f-75a778626e08","slug":"state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","caseName":"State ex rel. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Relator, vs. The Honorable Kevin Crane, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100623","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Department of Natural Resources sought a writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from proceeding with a personal injury claim filed by Scott Frey, who was injured while biking on the Katy Trail. The circuit court had denied the department's motion for summary judgment, which asserted immunity under the Recreational Use Act. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Recreational Use Act protects the department from liability. The Court found that the department met the Act's immunity requirements and that no exceptions, including those for gross negligence or ultrahazardous conditions, applied. It also rejected the argument that the department could be held vicariously liable for its employees' actions, as employees acting on behalf of a landowner share the landowner's immunity regarding land conditions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","personal-injury","premises-liability","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38624:2025-02-20","opinionId":"c91a5f93-752e-5146-9280-824ba9427b8d","slug":"the-state-of-missouri-ex-rel-springfield-r-xii-school-district-relator-v-d38624","caseName":"THE STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel.\nSPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Relator\nvs.\nTHE HONORABLE JOSHUA BOYD CHRISTENSEN, CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38624","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Springfield R-XII School District sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a minor plaintiff alleging sexual assault on school premises. The plaintiff claimed the lack of surveillance cameras in a \"blind spot\" stairwell constituted a dangerous condition, thereby waiving the school district's sovereign immunity. The appellate court issued a permanent writ of mandamus, holding that the alleged lack of cameras and failure to supervise did not constitute a physical defect in property necessary to waive sovereign immunity under Section 537.600.1(2). The court directed the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's petition with prejudice.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","premises-liability","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-state-of-missouri-ex-rel-springfield-r-xii-school-district-relator-v-d38624","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112690:2024-12-31","opinionId":"8c4fe192-5684-5eec-8339-c070a527d382","slug":"mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","caseName":"Mary Beth Fryman, Appellant, v. The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112690","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Fryman sued The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University for premises liability and negligence after falling on stairs on the Board's property. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding it immune from liability because Fryman's injury was not caused by an alleged dangerous condition of the stairs. The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation, as Fryman's expert opined the stairs were defectively designed and caused her fall, despite her testimony of tripping on her own feet.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"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":"moappwd:wd86960:2024-12-17","opinionId":"92abf841-7d2c-5e82-ba20-1bfdc450ef49","slug":"willie-roark-v-kc-pet-project-d86960","caseName":"Willie Roark\nvs.\nKC Pet Project","caseNumber":"WD86960","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Willie Roark sued KC Pet Project for negligence after being bitten by a dog, alleging the organization failed to take adequate animal control enforcement action. A jury awarded Roark $200,000 in compensatory damages. On appeal, KC Pet Project raised arguments concerning the public duty doctrine, lack of contractual privity, and errors in jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that KC Pet Project failed to preserve any of its claims of error for appellate review by not raising them in timely motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or by explicitly stating \"no objection\" to the jury instruction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","negligence","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/willie-roark-v-kc-pet-project-d86960","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38222:2024-11-25","opinionId":"2ac7c6b7-0b83-5d8c-8bf7-d17c857b5d00","slug":"as-and-ks-individually-and-as-next-friends-of-minor-js-appellants-v-willa-d38222","caseName":"A.S. and K.S., individually and as next friends of minor J.S., Appellants\nvs.\nWILLARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MATT TEETER, AMANDA HAMBEY, MISSY LUCAS, and DOES #1-20, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38222","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"A minor student, J.S., sustained severe head injuries on school grounds. Her parents, A.S. and K.S., sued Willard Public Schools and several individual employees for negligence, premises liability, and emotional distress. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the claims barred by sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the petition did not plead facts sufficient to waive sovereign immunity under the dangerous condition exception, nor did it establish that the individual employees failed to perform a ministerial duty, thus upholding official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","premises-liability","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/as-and-ks-individually-and-as-next-friends-of-minor-js-appellants-v-willa-d38222","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112331:2024-10-29","opinionId":"91d70153-3da7-5c1c-86a7-97873a37fd28","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. Mona Parsley, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, appealed the St. Louis City Board of Adjustment's denial of a conditional use permit for its convenience store. Appellant argued the Board's findings were insufficient, it acted outside its authority, its decision lacked substantial evidence, it constituted an unconstitutional taking, and Appellant was entitled to attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings sufficient, its denial supported by competent evidence, the takings claim unpreserved and meritless, and no basis for attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38196:2024-09-27","opinionId":"95344588-bc3b-5040-b050-bd2886975e35","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-andrew-t-moore-respondent-d38196","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant\nv.\nANDREW T. MOORE, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38196","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's grant of Andrew T. Moore's motion to dismiss certain allegations of receiving stolen property. Moore's motion sought to dismiss conduct prior to January 1, 2017, arguing it was not a violation of the charged statute before that date. The appellate court dismissed the State's appeal, finding that the State failed to timely file its notice of appeal within the five-day statutory period mandated by section 547.200.4, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-andrew-t-moore-respondent-d38196","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":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112415:2024-09-17","opinionId":"4a518a19-d2ce-559c-bbe4-ab09c35d85e2","slug":"city-of-st-louis-missouri-appellant-v-ryan-bertels-et-al-respondents-112415","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Ryan Bertels, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112415","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Ryan Bertels and Dana Hibbs, assistant attorneys general, on the City's professional malpractice claim. The City sought to recover $1.7 million paid in an underlying default judgment, arguing the attorneys failed to defend the Board of Police Commissioners. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for the attorneys, holding they were entitled to official immunity for their discretionary acts in deciding how to defend the Board. However, the court reversed the circuit court's order taxing costs against the City, finding no statutory authority to assess costs against a municipality.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211576","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-missouri-appellant-v-ryan-bertels-et-al-respondents-112415","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112349:2024-09-03","opinionId":"f361133b-fcdd-5272-b9f1-b4500e5a53f4","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, and Joseph Brauer and Chris Pappas, Plaintiffs, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112349","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a judgment it paid on behalf of a city police officer. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling it was entitled to reimbursement. The State appealed, arguing the claim was not authorized by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that SLEF liability is triggered by the date a claim is filed, not the date of the underlying conduct, and the claim in question was filed after SLEF liability for City police officers had terminated.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112005:2024-08-20","opinionId":"a31134be-922e-553e-b487-da9debf5934e","slug":"patricia-nowell-silman-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-v-112005","caseName":"Patricia Nowell-Silman, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Public Safety Veterans' Commission d/b/a Missouri Veterans' Home, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112005","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patricia Nowell-Silman appealed the dismissal of her premises liability and wrongful death petition against the Missouri Veterans' Home (MVC) after her father, a resident, left the facility, fell, and died. She alleged a dangerous condition on MVC's property due to the lack of coded locks and resident monitors, which she claimed waived sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the absence of such devices did not constitute a physical defect in the property necessary to establish a dangerous condition under the sovereign immunity waiver statute.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","premises-liability","civil-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-nowell-silman-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-v-112005","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38100:2024-07-17","opinionId":"4fe8cb62-3cc8-5be6-a631-9bbff4562719","slug":"david-raymond-cady-et-al-appellants-v-city-of-malden-missouri-a-municipal-d38100","caseName":"DAVID RAYMOND CADY, ET AL, Appellants\nv.\nCITY OF MALDEN, MISSOURI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38100","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Raymond Cady's next friends sued the City of Malden, a dispatcher, and an officer for wrongful death and negligent supervision after Cady committed suicide in jail. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the duties of monitoring a prisoner and walking a prisoner to a cell were discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore the official immunity doctrine applied.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","wrongful-death","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-raymond-cady-et-al-appellants-v-city-of-malden-missouri-a-municipal-d38100","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100376:2024-07-09","opinionId":"3bc17cf9-616a-5080-bfa4-33fb11b7f74d","slug":"benjamin-ramirez-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situa-100376","caseName":"Benjamin Ramirez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, vs. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys' & Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100376","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-07-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Benjamin Ramirez, on behalf of a putative class, sued the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue and the State Treasurer for unjust enrichment, challenging the constitutionality of statutes authorizing certain court cost surcharges he paid. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the state officials, finding no constitutional violation. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment, holding that sovereign immunity bars Ramirez's suit against the Director and Treasurer in their official capacities.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/benjamin-ramirez-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situa-100376","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:parent-208735","opinionId":"fd27e20c-fa0f-5a67-9267-b027de4b8e72","slug":"state-ex-rel-michael-j-love-relator-v-the-honorable-heather-r-cunningham-100197","caseName":"State ex rel. Michael J. Love, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. Gary Ludwick, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. Kristina Jordan, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. James Henson, Relator, vs. the Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, St. Louis County, Division 3, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100197","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Austin Jarvis and Tonya Musskopf brought a wrongful death action against MHTC employees Michael Love, Gary Ludwick, Kristina Jordan, and James Henson, alleging they violated mandatory safety policies leading to the deaths of Kaitlyn Anderson and Jaxx Jarvis. The employees sought writs of prohibition after the circuit court partially denied their motions for judgment on the pleadings based on official immunity. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writs permanent, holding that official immunity barred the claims because the employees' duties were discretionary, not ministerial, and the plaintiffs' allegations of malice were conclusory without factual support of intent to injure.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-michael-j-love-relator-v-the-honorable-heather-r-cunningham-100197","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38122:2024-04-29","opinionId":"60fa8693-7cb1-548e-87df-181fbf6273b8","slug":"aclu-of-missouri-and-luz-maria-henriquez-appellants-v-maries-county-sheri-d38122","caseName":"ACLU OF MISSOURI and LUZ MARIA HENRIQUEZ, Appellants\nvs.\nMARIES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38122","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"ACLU of Missouri and Luz Maria Henriquez appealed the dismissal of their Sunshine Law petition against the Maries County Sheriff's Office. The trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding the Sheriff's Office was not an entity that could sue or be sued, and denied leave to amend the petition to name the Sheriff. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend without a justifying reason, especially since the proposed amendment would relate back and the Sheriff had notice of the action.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aclu-of-missouri-and-luz-maria-henriquez-appellants-v-maries-county-sheri-d38122","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111748:2024-04-23","opinionId":"0974e38a-a70b-5bde-85ac-5ceae4582b99","slug":"susan-hays-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-appel-111748","caseName":"Susan Hays, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111748","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Susan Hays prevailed on a Missouri Human Rights Act claim against the State of Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC), and the trial court applied a 1.5 multiplier to her attorneys' fees. DOC appealed, arguing that sovereign immunity barred the use of a multiplier. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that DOC failed to preserve its sovereign immunity argument at the trial level and that sovereign immunity in this context is not a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal. The court remanded the case for the trial court to determine and award Hays reasonable appellate attorneys' fees.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207502","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-hays-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-appel-111748","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111474:2024-04-09","opinionId":"fe990eeb-27f6-5be2-bb9c-5df100db1123","slug":"lauren-neil-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111474","caseName":"Lauren Neil, et al., Appellants, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111474","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lauren Neil's family sued St. Louis County police officers after their decedent, Mikel Neil, died in a high-speed police chase. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no duty owed, no proximate causation, and protection by official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that police officers do not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to fleeing motorists.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lauren-neil-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111474","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111491:2024-04-09","opinionId":"9156e0d3-ff21-5a0a-bb28-bbc25997de07","slug":"tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","caseName":"Tony Woolfolk, et al., Appellants, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111491","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tony Woolfolk's family sued St. Louis County police officers for wrongful death after Woolfolk, a passenger, died in a high-speed police chase that ended in a crash. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no duty, no proximate causation, and protection under official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that police officers do not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to voluntary passengers in a fleeing vehicle.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100172:2024-04-02","opinionId":"c7313fdf-3432-5157-8ee3-91c4a0ee7394","slug":"mo-cann-do-inc-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-servi-100172","caseName":"MO CANN Do, Inc., Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100172","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"MO CANN Do, Inc. appealed an administrative decision denying its application for a medical marijuana cultivation license because it failed to submit a certificate of good standing. The Administrative Hearing Commission and the circuit court affirmed the denial. On transfer, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the application failed to meet minimum regulatory standards. The Court rejected arguments that the Department of Health and Senior Services waived the requirement or was equitably estopped from denying the application, emphasizing the high regulation of the marijuana industry.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mo-cann-do-inc-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-servi-100172","relatedPracticeAreas":[]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86061:2024-03-12","opinionId":"ea40b81e-2f24-5dce-b8b1-fc589eaa832c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-craig-neil-salcedo-d86061","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCraig Neil Salcedo","caseNumber":"WD86061","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Craig Salcedo appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity and his motion to suppress evidence. Salcedo argued he was immune from prosecution because the methamphetamine was found during a good-faith request for medical assistance related to a mental health emergency. He also contended the warrantless search that discovered the drugs violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the immunity statute did not apply to non-drug related mental health commitments and that a search incident to civil detention for mental health transport is reasonable.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","governmental-immunity","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-craig-neil-salcedo-d86061","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100099:2024-03-05","opinionId":"9da6ad71-fd8d-568d-a388-2d59ab504bb3","slug":"state-ex-rel-clinton-no-1-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-brandon-baker-respo-100099","caseName":"State ex rel. Clinton No. 1, Inc., Relator, vs. The Honorable Brandon Baker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100099","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donna Yarnell filed a wrongful death action against Clinton No. 1, Inc., a healthcare center, alleging negligence after her mother contracted COVID-19. Clinton sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to dismiss the action, claiming immunity under the federal PREP Act and two Missouri statutes. The Missouri Supreme Court quashed its preliminary writ of mandamus, holding that Yarnell's petition did not implicate a \"covered countermeasure\" under the PREP Act, Clinton failed to demonstrate deployment under one state immunity statute, and Yarnell adequately alleged recklessness to overcome the other state immunity statutes.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-clinton-no-1-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-brandon-baker-respo-100099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111694:2024-01-30","opinionId":"89c26fd7-bdd3-53f5-afee-0bac25554242","slug":"john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","caseName":"John Carlton, Appellant, vs. Brandon Means, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111694","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Carlton sued Officer Brandon Means for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular collision, alleging negligence or malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Officer Means, concluding he was entitled to official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the malice exception to official immunity did not apply because there were no facts demonstrating Officer Means acted with the requisite intent to injure or prejudice Carlton, even if his conduct was reckless.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","auto-accident","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","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":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100110:2024-01-09","opinionId":"bd02cc5c-6275-5d21-a0fa-3040915cc253","slug":"rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-100110","caseName":"Rachel Sender, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent","caseNumber":"SC100110","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Rachel Sender sued the City of St. Louis for negligence after a bicycle accident on a bike path, alleging a defect. The circuit court dismissed her claims, finding the bike path was a \"thoroughfare\" requiring statutory notice under section 82.210, and her notice was insufficient. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the bike path is indeed a thoroughfare under the statute, but it could not review the sufficiency of Sender's notice because she failed to provide the necessary evidentiary hearing transcript in the record on appeal.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-100110","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"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":"mo:sc100069:2023-12-19","opinionId":"75509e21-e9b7-5ade-9182-8194775a96d8","slug":"state-ex-rel-jayla-ruiz-morales-john-kimani-and-valarie-johnson-relators-100069","caseName":"State ex rel. Jayla Ruiz-Morales, John Kimani, and Valarie Johnson, Relators, vs. The Honorable Deborah Alessi, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100069","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jayla Ruiz-Morales, John Kimani, and Valarie Johnson, employees of a state-operated treatment center, sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court overruled their motion to dismiss a wrongful death action based on official immunity. The underlying action alleged negligence in the care of a patient, Ronald Scheer, who died while in their care. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the employees were entitled to official immunity because the duties outlined in the patient's individual support plan involved discretion, not purely ministerial acts.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203720","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-jayla-ruiz-morales-john-kimani-and-valarie-johnson-relators-100069","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111319:2023-09-19","opinionId":"87efd5ee-d11c-54dc-ab7e-ddce92311856","slug":"zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","caseName":"Z.S., By and Through His Next Friend, P.S., Appellant, v. Rockwood School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111319","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Z.S., through his next friend, P.S., appealed the summary judgment granted in favor of Rockwood School District. Z.S. sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he collided with a gymnasium wall during a physical education class, alleging the wall was a dangerous condition. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Z.S. failed to establish the gymnasium wall was in a dangerous condition sufficient to waive the District's sovereign immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201222","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111501:2023-08-08","opinionId":"0ef06e06-f395-5306-9b3d-c6c0d5f77bb0","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-andrew-bailey-relator-v-the-honorable-bruce-f-hi-111501","caseName":"State of Missouri ex rel. Andrew Bailey, Relator, vs. The Honorable Bruce F. Hilton, Circuit Judge of St. Louis County, and Joan M. Gilmer, Circuit Clerk, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111501","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"Antonio Tyler's probation was revoked after his initial probationary period expired, leading him to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted the writ, finding the probation court lacked authority to revoke probation because it failed to manifest intent or make reasonable efforts to conduct a hearing before the period expired. The appellate court reversed the habeas court's decision, holding that the probation court did affirmatively manifest its intent and made reasonable efforts, and that the delay was attributable to Tyler's actions. The appellate court quashed the record of the habeas court.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198316","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-andrew-bailey-relator-v-the-honorable-bruce-f-hi-111501","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99928:2023-07-20","opinionId":"4cf5f503-49d2-55f0-b235-22ab5032daed","slug":"christina-forester-appellant-v-crystal-may-respondent-c99928","caseName":"Christina Forester, Appellant, vs. Crystal May, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99928","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-07-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christina Forester sued Crystal May, a children's division caseworker, for the wrongful death of her granddaughter, alleging May failed to perform a ministerial duty by not timely completing a SAFE CARE referral. The circuit court dismissed Forester's petition, finding May was entitled to official immunity and that causation was not adequately pleaded. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the dismissal, holding that May's actions involved discretion and thus she was protected by official immunity, making the petition fail to state a claim.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197718","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-forester-appellant-v-crystal-may-respondent-c99928","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99092:2023-06-13","opinionId":"bb283b4c-975e-5906-9b9b-504cfe8d5e97","slug":"conservation-commission-and-missouri-department-of-conservation-responden-c99092","caseName":"Conservation Commission and Missouri Department of Conservation, Respondents, vs. Andrew Bailey, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Missouri, and Ken Zellers, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Office of Administration, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99092","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"The Conservation Commission and Missouri Department of Conservation sought declaratory relief against the Attorney General and Commissioner of the Office of Administration after the General Assembly attempted to restrict the Commission's use of appropriated funds for land acquisition and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). The circuit court ruled in favor of the Commission, finding the General Assembly lacked authority to limit the Commission's constitutional powers. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Article IV, sections 40-44 grant the Conservation Commission plenary authority to expend and use conservation funds for constitutionally enumerated purposes, and the General Assembly cannot interfere with this authority.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196620","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/conservation-commission-and-missouri-department-of-conservation-responden-c99092","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110548:2023-05-30","opinionId":"7432163e-1296-5214-a9de-91ebf7b4db02","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-rachel-nixon-respondent-110548","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Rachel Nixon, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110548","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's judgment dismissing criminal charges against Rachel Nixon with prejudice, alleging discovery violations and a speedy trial violation. The trial court had found that the State made a willful or bad faith discovery violation by failing to produce an ATF report and that further delays would violate Nixon's right to a speedy trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State did not violate discovery rules because the ATF report was not subject to the trial court's jurisdiction under federal Touhy regulations, and therefore the speedy trial claim also failed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-rachel-nixon-respondent-110548","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110549:2023-05-30","opinionId":"9430fd5a-6fbc-5e2b-b093-a089eb02e406","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-karen-a-quinn-respondent-110549","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Karen A. Quinn, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110549","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's dismissal of criminal charges against Karen A. Quinn for murder, robbery, and armed criminal action. The trial court had dismissed the charges with prejudice, citing the State's alleged discovery violations and a speedy trial violation. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for reinstatement of charges, holding that the State did not violate discovery rules because it diligently sought the federal report and the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal agency. The court also found that dismissing the serious charges with prejudice was an abuse of discretion and that the speedy trial claim failed as it was based on the erroneous discovery finding.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195994","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-karen-a-quinn-respondent-110549","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110581:2023-05-09","opinionId":"f12a2017-63bb-58ef-b507-2d4bde75fa88","slug":"vicki-shad-schaefer-individually-and-vicki-shade-schaefer-on-behalf-of-th-110581","caseName":"Vicki Shad-Schaefer, Individually, and Vicki Shade-Schaefer on Behalf of the Estate of Wayne Schaefer, Christopher Schaefer, and Stephanie Schaefer, Appellants, vs. City of Eureka, Robert Wade, and Richard Green, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED110581","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"Appellants sued the City of Eureka, its employee Robert Wade, and painter Richard Green for inhalation injuries from paint overspray during water tank maintenance, later adding a wrongful death claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants and denied leave to add the wrongful death claim. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for Eureka, finding its water tank maintenance a proprietary function not protected by sovereign immunity. It affirmed summary judgment for Wade and Green on the original negligence claims. The court also reversed the denial of leave to add the wrongful death claim against Eureka, Green, and two new defendants, holding the claim accrued at death and was not time-barred, and that the trial court abused its discretion. However, the denial of leave as to Wade was affirmed due to official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vicki-shad-schaefer-individually-and-vicki-shade-schaefer-on-behalf-of-th-110581","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-195013","opinionId":"b80f68eb-53dd-550b-bc09-3105a3c10ce5","slug":"greg-halderman-v-city-of-sturgeon-missouri-and-tyler-patterson-d85066","caseName":"Greg Halderman\nvs.\nCity of Sturgeon, Missouri and Tyler Patterson","caseNumber":"WD85066","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-02","year":2023,"display_summary":"Greg Halderman, the City of Sturgeon's Chief of Police, was terminated and sued the City for wrongful discharge and Alderman Tyler Patterson for tortious interference. The circuit court found Halderman's initial termination unlawful for lack of a contested-case hearing and a jury awarded him damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the circuit court's finding that the 2017 termination was unlawful and upheld the wrongful-discharge judgment against the City. However, it reversed the judgment against Patterson, concluding that an alderman is not a third party to the city's employment contract for tortious interference purposes. The court also granted Halderman's request for appellate attorney's fees against the City and remanded for their calculation.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/greg-halderman-v-city-of-sturgeon-missouri-and-tyler-patterson-d85066","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110898:2023-04-18","opinionId":"6404f3fb-7b39-5fcc-a901-4fa24d67fb0f","slug":"rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-110898","caseName":"Rachel Sender, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110898","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Rachel Sender sued the City of St. Louis for injuries sustained after wrecking her bicycle on a bike path, alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court dismissed her petition, finding her notice to the City insufficient under Section 82.210, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a bike path is a \"thoroughfare\" under the statute, and the City failed to establish that Sender's notice was so misleading as to prejudice its ability to investigate or defend.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","premises-liability","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194600","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-110898","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85580:2023-04-18","opinionId":"aecee94e-8807-59da-a53d-38011e341820","slug":"colleen-spurlock-v-city-of-columbia-missouri-d85580","caseName":"Colleen Spurlock\nvs.\nCity of Columbia, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85580","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Colleen Spurlock sued the City of Columbia, Missouri, her former employer, alleging retaliation under Missouri's public-employee whistleblower statute. The trial court dismissed her petition with prejudice. The appellate court reversed, holding that the City lacked standing to challenge the statute's constitutionality on vagueness grounds and that Spurlock had sufficiently pleaded facts to establish a claim under the whistleblower statute regarding disclosure, abuse of authority, and disciplinary action.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194543","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-spurlock-v-city-of-columbia-missouri-d85580","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110638:2023-03-07","opinionId":"a5faed79-2142-5eca-8c00-316ced45f74d","slug":"stephanie-clark-appellant-v-ssm-healthcare-st-louis-dba-ssm-health-st-jos-110638","caseName":"Stephanie Clark, Appellant, vs. SSM Healthcare St. Louis, d/b/a SSM Health St. Joseph Hospital, Wentzville, Dawn Holemon, M.D., Lee M. Freund, D.O., and St. Charles Emergency Group, LLC., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110638","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Stephanie Clark sued SSM Healthcare St. Louis and other medical providers for medical negligence and wrongful death after her fourteen-year-old daughter, D.G., committed suicide following discharge from the hospital. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on three grounds: causation, statutory immunity, and a claim for aggravating circumstances damages. The appellate court reversed on all three bases, finding that the trial court misconstrued Missouri law on causation in wrongful death cases, erroneously applied a statutory immunity provision, and used the wrong version of the statute for aggravating circumstances damages.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","negligence","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193099","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephanie-clark-appellant-v-ssm-healthcare-st-louis-dba-ssm-health-st-jos-110638","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85350:2023-02-07","opinionId":"3ea84599-e5b4-5767-a348-2721a381374b","slug":"cassandra-cox-v-callaway-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-d85350","caseName":"Cassandra Cox\nvs. \nCallaway County Sheriff's Department, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85350","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Cassandra Cox sued Callaway County and fourteen correctional officers for negligence after experiencing a cardiac event while detained at the county jail. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding them entitled to official and sovereign immunity, and that proximate cause was not established. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Cox failed to properly preserve her arguments regarding official immunity and that Callaway County's sovereign immunity was not waived by its insurance policy's disclaimer provision.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cassandra-cox-v-callaway-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-d85350","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85589:2023-02-07","opinionId":"396b577c-adac-5bf4-adf0-bb6356f943d0","slug":"eric-s-clark-v-bridgette-shaffer-et-al-d85589","caseName":"Eric S. Clark \nvs. \nBridgette Shaffer, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85589","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Eric Clark appealed the trial court's dismissal of his petition challenging a COVID-19 mask mandate and its denial of his motions for leave to amend. Clark's initial federal lawsuit was dismissed as moot and remanded to state court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend or in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to state a claim.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/eric-s-clark-v-bridgette-shaffer-et-al-d85589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85738:2023-02-07","opinionId":"fb9f6db3-c1cd-5e5b-a13f-b081f9e2ec58","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-the-school-district-of-kansas-city-33-v-the-hono-d85738","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., The School District of Kansas City 33\nvs. \nThe Honorable Jerri J. Zhang","caseNumber":"WD85738","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jane Doe sued the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) for negligence and other torts after a sexual assault occurred on school property. KCPS moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied. The appellate court issued a permanent writ of prohibition, holding that KCPS's insurance policies did not waive sovereign immunity, even if the policies failed to comply with statutory signature requirements. The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for KCPS.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","insurance","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192117","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-the-school-district-of-kansas-city-33-v-the-hono-d85738","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:sc99419:2023-01-31","opinionId":"d7fa7f3a-2d0a-5d96-a202-82f60b7a72a8","slug":"christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-c99419","caseName":"Christopher Zang, Appellant, vs. City of St. Charles, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99419","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christopher Zang sued the City of St. Charles for negligence and premises liability after sustaining injuries from a fall. The circuit court dismissed Zang's premises liability claim due to his failure to provide notice of suit as required by the City's Charter. Zang appealed, arguing the Charter's notice requirement conflicted with various state statutes. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no irreconcilable conflict between the Charter's notice provision and the cited state statutes, as local laws may be more restrictive than state laws.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","premises-liability","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-c99419","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99273:2022-12-20","opinionId":"6f158a8f-10cc-5d10-8a75-99942d7eb81d","slug":"city-of-harrisonville-missouri-respondentcross-appellant-v-the-board-of-t-c99273","caseName":"City of Harrisonville, Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. The Board of Trustees of the MO Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund in their Official Capacity, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99273","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-12-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"The City of Harrisonville sued the Board of Trustees of the MO Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund for fraud, seeking punitive damages after a prior appeal established the Fund was not a legal entity. The circuit court awarded $8 million in punitive damages against the Board. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board is a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity from tort claims, and no exception to immunity applied. The Court also found the Board had not waived its immunity defense, nor was it precluded by the law of the case doctrine.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-harrisonville-missouri-respondentcross-appellant-v-the-board-of-t-c99273","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84640:2022-12-13","opinionId":"db6a655f-4baf-58b1-bc86-d16d072c7f33","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-semaj-harris-d84640","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs. \nSemaj Harris","caseNumber":"WD84640","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-13","year":2022,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's dismissal of charges against Semaj Harris, arguing the court exceeded its authority by dismissing charges with prejudice and that a prior plea did not bar prosecution for armed criminal action. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the trial court erred in dismissing felony murder and first-degree robbery charges with prejudice, as this interfered with an ongoing deferred prosecution agreement, and ordered them dismissed without prejudice. However, the court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the armed criminal action charge, finding the DPA ambiguous and construing it against the State to prohibit that prosecution.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-semaj-harris-d84640","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":42,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"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:sc99626:2022-12-06","opinionId":"9804b3aa-281c-53b9-8001-443c167e0444","slug":"state-ex-rel-mayela-barron-relator-v-the-honorable-john-d-beger-responden-c99626","caseName":"State ex rel. Mayela Barron, Relator, vs. The Honorable John D. Beger, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99626","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Justin Osborn alleged negligence claims against Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper Mayela Barron in her individual capacity. The circuit court denied Trooper Barron's motion for summary judgment, concluding she was not entitled to official immunity. The Missouri Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, which it then made permanent, directing the circuit court to vacate its order and sustain Trooper Barron's motion for summary judgment. The Court held that Trooper Barron's actions during the pursuit were discretionary, not ministerial, thus entitling her to official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191004","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-mayela-barron-relator-v-the-honorable-john-d-beger-responden-c99626","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37325:2022-11-22","opinionId":"10935309-033b-5cfb-984d-e0f519968c3f","slug":"christina-forester-appellant-v-chrystal-may-respondent-d37325","caseName":"CHRISTINA FORESTER, Appellant\nvs.\nCHRYSTAL MAY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37325","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Christina Forester filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Chrystal May, a Children's Division caseworker, after Forester's 22-month-old grandchild died from a fentanyl overdose. The trial court dismissed the petition based on official immunity and lack of causation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the caseworker's duty to complete and submit a SAFE CARE referral form was a ministerial act not subject to official immunity, and that causation was not a proper ground for dismissal as it was not raised in the motion to dismiss.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-forester-appellant-v-chrystal-may-respondent-d37325","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85122:2022-11-22","opinionId":"aff9a8f9-3c0d-5b64-8658-5c3ba577bd14","slug":"in-the-interest-of-smw-juvenile-officer-v-sew-d85122","caseName":"In the Interest of: S.M.W., Juvenile Officer, \nvs. \nS.E.W.","caseNumber":"WD85122","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"S.E.W. (father) appealed the juvenile court's disposition judgment that assumed jurisdiction over his child, S.M.W., and ordered father to participate in certain services. Father argued the juvenile court erred by appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent him, claiming it usurped his Chapter 475 guardian, and by ordering services without considering his disability, violating federal anti-discrimination laws. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the GAL appointment as it was statutorily required for an incompetent parent, and declining to review the services issue due to briefing deficiencies.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190598","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-smw-juvenile-officer-v-sew-d85122","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37344:2022-11-14","opinionId":"9fe60d51-2c30-5b24-9e8e-be487aeed820","slug":"kenneth-d-gilmore-respondent-v-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d37344","caseName":"KENNETH D. GILMORE, Respondent\nv.\nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37344","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-14","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kenneth D. Gilmore sued the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, for negligence after he was injured when a rocking chair broke during a supervised visit. A jury found in Gilmore's favor, and the trial court reduced the damages award by comparative fault and then applied a statutory cap. The Children's Division appealed, challenging the application of the dangerous condition exception to sovereign immunity, the spoliation inference, the admission of a statement, and the method of applying the statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of the Children's Division's points.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","negligence","premises-liability","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-d-gilmore-respondent-v-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d37344","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110167:2022-10-25","opinionId":"6d388331-3fc2-56f7-a6ac-ccc015c4cdc3","slug":"jacob-t-shepard-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-110167","caseName":"Jacob T. Shepard, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110167","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jacob Shepard appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He argued his counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty despite a potential defense under Missouri's Good Samaritan Law, Section 195.205, and that the circuit court lacked authority to convict him. The Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding Shepard's allegations of ineffective assistance were insufficient and refuted by the record, and that the Good Samaritan Law provides a waivable defense, not a jurisdictional bar.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jacob-t-shepard-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-110167","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99384:2022-07-12","opinionId":"4f6b5417-c177-574d-8052-7734a87852b2","slug":"travis-poke-appellant-v-independence-school-district-respondent-c99384","caseName":"Travis Poke, Appellant, vs. Independence School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99384","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-07-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"Travis Poke sued the Independence School District, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding it was protected by sovereign immunity. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of sections 287.780 and 287.030, read together, constitutes an express waiver of sovereign immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims against school districts.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/travis-poke-appellant-v-independence-school-district-respondent-c99384","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85004:2022-06-28","opinionId":"110e33ee-651b-5c96-b153-a5a988e5ddc6","slug":"jacob-hummel-v-john-r-ashcroft-et-al-d85004","caseName":"Jacob Hummel\nvs. \nJohn R. Ashcroft, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85004","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jacob Hummel challenged the Missouri Secretary of State's summary statement for an initiative petition, arguing it was insufficient and unfair. The trial court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair, certifying a revised version. On appeal, the Secretary of State raised three points of error, but during the appeal, the deadline for submitting signatures for the initiative to appear on the November 2022 ballot passed without any signatures being submitted. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate its judgment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187638","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jacob-hummel-v-john-r-ashcroft-et-al-d85004","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84981:2022-06-21","opinionId":"83e5b28c-9a64-5c10-81da-74868b9bb8f6","slug":"bethany-j-kelly-v-boone-county-missouri-and-brandon-wainman-d84981","caseName":"Bethany J. Kelly\nvs. \nBoone County, Missouri and Brandon Wainman","caseNumber":"WD84981","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-21","year":2022,"display_summary":"Bethany J. Kelly filed a wrongful death suit against Boone County and its snow plow driver, Brandon Wainman, after a fatal collision. Kelly moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the defendants' asserted defenses of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine were inapplicable. The trial court granted Kelly's motion, and the defendants appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the partial summary judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because it did not fully resolve any claims and was therefore ineligible for certification under Rule 74.01(b).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bethany-j-kelly-v-boone-county-missouri-and-brandon-wainman-d84981","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109960:2022-06-07","opinionId":"a6e6ec6e-5e1a-54d1-948d-94d150668c1f","slug":"layette-c-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-109960","caseName":"Layette C. Williams, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109960","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-06-07","year":2022,"display_summary":"Layette Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a probation condition requiring him to pay child support from his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, which he claimed federal law prohibits from attachment. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a claim challenging a condition of probation is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding because probation is neither a conviction nor a sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187256","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/layette-c-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-109960","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84636:2022-05-31","opinionId":"75d8a036-1527-5b38-9fef-7f8028202249","slug":"judy-a-tinnin-v-modot-patrol-employees-retirement-system-d84636","caseName":"Judy A. Tinnin\nvs.\nMODOT & Patrol Employees' Retirement System","caseNumber":"WD84636","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-31","year":2022,"display_summary":"Judy A. Tinnin sought judicial review of a decision by the MODOT & Patrol Employees' Retirement System (MPERS) board of trustees, which corrected a calculation error that reduced her future monthly retirement benefits. The trial court reversed MPERS's decision, applying equitable estoppel and interpreting the relevant statutes to include a reasonableness limitation on MPERS's duty to correct errors. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that MPERS had a mandatory statutory duty to correct calculation errors discovered within ten years, and this duty was not subject to a reasonableness limitation or equitable estoppel.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/judy-a-tinnin-v-modot-patrol-employees-retirement-system-d84636","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84941:2022-05-17","opinionId":"64c1e401-c0a8-57cb-967a-c65fcfaefa17","slug":"audrey-baker-et-al-v-crossroads-academy-central-street-et-al-d84941","caseName":"Audrey Baker, et al.\nvs.\nCrossroads Academy-Central Street, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84941","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-17","year":2022,"display_summary":"Audrey Baker and other parents and children (the Bakers) appealed the dismissal of their petition challenging Missouri's vaccination and exemption regulations for school children. The Bakers alleged violations of constitutional provisions and federal and state laws, including free exercise of religion, equal protection, and the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the Bakers lacked standing against certain health departments, the regulations were rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and the statutory scheme did not violate constitutional rights or RFRA.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/audrey-baker-et-al-v-crossroads-academy-central-street-et-al-d84941","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36999:2022-05-10","opinionId":"100a8aa2-a2b1-558c-866b-b06b2941bc46","slug":"george-f-aldridge-jr-appellant-v-brian-hoskin-et-al-respondents-d36999","caseName":"GEORGE F. ALDRIDGE, JR., Appellant\nvs.\nBRIAN HOSKIN, et al., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36999","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-10","year":2022,"display_summary":"Inmate George Aldridge, Jr. sued six Missouri Department of Corrections officers for failing to return a radio/cassette player and personal photos after his release from administrative segregation. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings against Aldridge, finding his claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in § 516.145. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the claims were filed more than a year after the damages were ascertainable and that equitable tolling did not apply to the statute.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-f-aldridge-jr-appellant-v-brian-hoskin-et-al-respondents-d36999","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99290:2022-04-26","opinionId":"07a5a530-8bf6-5c6c-9855-8ab41029b203","slug":"city-of-st-louis-st-louis-county-and-jackson-county-appellants-v-state-of-c99290","caseName":"City of St. Louis; St. Louis County; and Jackson County, Appellants, vs. State of Missouri; and Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC99290","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-04-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Jackson County filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) and seeking injunctive relief. The circuit court granted the state's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law in pending individual lawsuits. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs lacked an adequate remedy at law to adjudicate their specific constitutional challenges, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court declined to rule on the merits of SAPA's constitutionality at this stage.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186462","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-st-louis-county-and-jackson-county-appellants-v-state-of-c99290","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99332:2022-04-26","opinionId":"19f63b16-ccb3-5cd2-b60f-2c0f9fad5a3a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-g-hollowell-appellant-c99332","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Eric G. Hollowell, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC99332","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-04-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Eric G. Hollowell appealed his conviction for 15 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that the circuit court committed reversible error by allowing a detective to testify about a non-testifying witness's out-of-court statement that directly implicated Hollowell. The Court held that this testimony went beyond explaining subsequent police conduct and prejudiced Hollowell, depriving him of a fair trial. The Court also affirmed that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions (considering cross-examination testimony) and that separate convictions for each firearm do not violate double jeopardy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186460","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-g-hollowell-appellant-c99332","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98904:2022-04-26","opinionId":"dc3b16b8-8c46-536b-b2a0-0854988bdbce","slug":"jefferson-county-9-1-1-dispatch-respondent-v-joseph-g-plaggenberg-acting-c98904","caseName":"Jefferson County 9-1-1 Dispatch, Respondent, vs. Joseph G. Plaggenberg, Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC98904","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-04-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jefferson County 9-1-1 Dispatch sought a declaratory judgment, mandamus, and injunctive relief against the Director of the Department of Revenue, challenging the constitutionality of a statute capping its sales tax. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Dispatch on one of its three constitutional claims, leaving the others pending. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the Director's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not a \"final judgment\" because it did not resolve all claims and was not properly certified under Rule 74.01(b).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-county-9-1-1-dispatch-respondent-v-joseph-g-plaggenberg-acting-c98904","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109443:2022-03-29","opinionId":"3cf600c1-d177-5569-af2f-df3ec7a5c848","slug":"flower-valley-llc-et-al-respondents-v-jake-zimmerman-assessor-st-louis-co-109443","caseName":"Flower Valley, LLC, et al., Respondents, vs. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109443","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Taxpayers, who successfully appealed their real estate tax valuations, sought reimbursement for attorney fees and appraisal costs. These costs were paid by a third-party property tax agent (PAR) under a contingency fee agreement, not directly by the Taxpayers. The circuit court awarded the fees, reversing the State Tax Commission's (STC) denial. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the relevant statute and ordinance, strictly construed as waivers of sovereign immunity, require a taxpayer to have actually incurred or paid the expenses to be eligible for \"reimbursement.\" The case was remanded with instructions to reinstate the STC's order denying fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185816","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/flower-valley-llc-et-al-respondents-v-jake-zimmerman-assessor-st-louis-co-109443","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109775:2022-03-22","opinionId":"8f057ab6-81a4-5617-93e9-04aa181d8c1e","slug":"isabella-gray-ross-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondents-109775","caseName":"Isabella Gray-Ross, Appellant, vs. St. Louis Public Schools, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109775","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Isabella Gray-Ross sued individual employees of St. Louis Public Schools for negligence after she was attacked during a high school soccer match, sustaining a traumatic brain injury and orbital blowout fracture. The trial court granted the individual respondents' motions to dismiss, finding them protected by official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the duties alleged against both the security guard and supervisory personnel were discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore official immunity barred Gray-Ross's claims as a matter of law.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/isabella-gray-ross-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondents-109775","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84487:2022-03-15","opinionId":"a75e2795-4e51-52be-8181-2b4410424788","slug":"judy-conway-et-al-v-rebecca-caldwell-et-al-d84487","caseName":"Judy Conway, et al.\nvs. \nRebecca Caldwell, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84487","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-15","year":2022,"display_summary":"Appellants, relatives of a child who died from abuse, sued Missouri Department of Social Services employees for negligence, alleging they failed to protect the child. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, finding the employees protected by official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employees' actions in investigating abuse and determining subsequent steps were discretionary, not ministerial, and thus covered by official immunity. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend the petition.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185195","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/judy-conway-et-al-v-rebecca-caldwell-et-al-d84487","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109814:2022-03-08","opinionId":"9da4900d-39e0-5a2e-a1c1-ced873510e51","slug":"kitc-homes-llc-appellant-v-city-of-richmond-heights-mo-respondent-109814","caseName":"KITC Homes, LLC, Appellant, vs. City of Richmond Heights, MO, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109814","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"KITC Homes, LLC appealed the dismissal of its claims against the City of Richmond Heights for tortious interference, negligence, and impairment of contract. The trial court dismissed the tort claims based on sovereign immunity and the contract claim for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference and negligence claims, finding KITC sufficiently pleaded the proprietary-function exception to sovereign immunity. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the impairment of contract claim, concluding KITC failed to allege a recognizable cause of action under the Contracts Clause.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kitc-homes-llc-appellant-v-city-of-richmond-heights-mo-respondent-109814","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":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:ed109495:2022-03-01","opinionId":"f9cab992-7a09-51dd-bb1f-62c9772b4789","slug":"benjamin-w-wagner-appellant-v-ann-precythe-et-al-respondents-109495","caseName":"Benjamin W. Wagner, Appellant, vs. Ann Precythe, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-01","year":2022,"display_summary":"Benjamin W. Wagner, an incarcerated individual, sued Missouri Department of Corrections officials and a nurse, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to accommodate his hearing loss. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, specifically requesting audio-to-FM transmitters for televisions. The trial court dismissed his amended petition, and Wagner appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for mootness, finding that Wagner's release from custody during the pendency of the appeal rendered his claims for equitable relief unnecessary and no exception to the mootness doctrine applied.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184796","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/benjamin-w-wagner-appellant-v-ann-precythe-et-al-respondents-109495","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109658:2022-03-01","opinionId":"efce8ff4-7ec3-569f-95ad-dbef2c3a4cc6","slug":"amanda-gill-appellant-v-city-of-st-peters-respondent-109658","caseName":"Amanda Gill, Appellant, v. City of St. Peters, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109658","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-01","year":2022,"display_summary":"Amanda Gill appealed the circuit court's dismissal of Count II of her petition, which alleged sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) based on a disparate impact theory. The circuit court dismissed the claim, finding it time-barred and that Missouri courts do not recognize a disparate impact claim under the MHRA. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Gill's claim was time-barred as her transfer was a discrete act not subject to the continuing violation theory, and that the Lilly Ledbetter Act does not extend MHRA filing periods. The court further held that Missouri courts have not recognized a disparate impact claim under the MHRA, and Gill failed to plead facts to support such a claim.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amanda-gill-appellant-v-city-of-st-peters-respondent-109658","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108130:2022-01-04","opinionId":"a4c77bc2-d488-561e-b881-0dd766a938bb","slug":"state-of-missouri-el-rel-attorney-general-eric-schmitt-appellant-v-city-o-108130","caseName":"State of Missouri, el rel. Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108130","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri, ex rel. Attorney General, appealed a circuit court's summary judgment that declared the City of St. Louis had no obligation to make payments under a civil rights settlement, placing the entire obligation on the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF). The underlying settlement stemmed from a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by George Allen, Jr. and his mother after Allen's 1983 conviction was vacated in 2012. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the statutes in effect when Allen's claim was made in 2014 prohibited SLEF from paying claims against police officers, thus making the City responsible.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-el-rel-attorney-general-eric-schmitt-appellant-v-city-o-108130","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":26,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84333:2021-11-30","opinionId":"355fb833-5e4a-5c09-99d5-9baf51793c5b","slug":"cass-county-missouri-v-city-of-lees-summit-missouri-d84333","caseName":"Cass County, Missouri\nvs. \nCity of Lee's Summit, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD84333","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Cass County sought a declaratory judgment that it does not own or bear responsibility for a bridge in disrepair, which spans the Raintree Lake Dam. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding it had conveyed any interest in the bridge to the City of Lee's Summit via a quitclaim deed. On appeal, the City argued the deed was void against public policy and the Missouri Constitution, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding offer and acceptance. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding the deed unambiguously conveyed County's interest and the City's actions demonstrated acceptance, while declining to address the constitutional claim as premature.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182277","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cass-county-missouri-v-city-of-lees-summit-missouri-d84333","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108858:2021-11-09","opinionId":"24d55477-573e-54b4-9af4-73fee8046236","slug":"kristine-hendrix-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondent-108858","caseName":"Kristine Hendrix, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108858","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kristine Hendrix appealed the circuit court's denial of her motion to recuse and its grant of summary judgment to the City of St. Louis on her negligent training and supervision claim. Officer Ogunjobi cross-appealed the denial of his motion for directed verdict on Hendrix's excessive force/battery claim, and Officer Wilson cross-appealed the denial of his request for attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding Hendrix waived her recusal argument, the City did not waive sovereign immunity, sufficient evidence supported the jury's excessive force verdict, and Officer Wilson failed to plead attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristine-hendrix-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondent-108858","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109422:2021-10-19","opinionId":"9980a60e-a27a-536d-8361-fc212dc5836b","slug":"christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-109422","caseName":"Christopher Zang, Appellant, v. City of St. Charles, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109422","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Christopher Zang sued the City of St. Charles for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident on a city bridge, alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court dismissed Zang's premises liability claim, finding that a city charter provision requiring notice of claims was valid and consistent with state law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the city charter's broad notice requirement conflicted with state statutes that narrowly waive sovereign immunity and impose notice requirements only for specific dangerous conditions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181339","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-109422","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84121:2021-10-19","opinionId":"419a444f-2639-5c23-ab03-aedaf4bab4e5","slug":"keith-e-walker-v-anne-precythe-et-al-d84121","caseName":"Keith E. Walker\nvs. \nAnne Precythe, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84121","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-10-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Keith Walker, an incarcerated person, appealed the dismissal of his \"Whistle Blower Complaint\" against the Missouri Department of Corrections and its officials, which alleged misappropriation of funds for winter clothing and medicine. The trial court had dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. The appellate court dismissed Walker's appeal, finding that his brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, thereby preserving nothing for review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181275","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/keith-e-walker-v-anne-precythe-et-al-d84121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99010:2021-10-12","opinionId":"14fe09f8-f8d8-54a7-8e95-80a5e3440eb5","slug":"the-board-of-commissioners-of-the-county-of-franklin-state-of-missouri-ti-c99010","caseName":"The Board of Commissioners of the County of Franklin, State of Missouri; Tim Brinker, Presiding Commissioner; Todd Boland, First District Commissioner; Dave Hinson, Second District Commissioner; and Angela Gibson, Auditor of the County of Franklin, State of Missouri, Appellants, vs. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, by the Honorable I. I. Lamke, Presiding Judge, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99010","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-10-12","year":2021,"display_summary":"The Franklin County Board of Commissioners petitioned the Judicial Finance Commission (JFC) to determine if a statutory \"Maintenance of Effort\" (MOE) capped its funding obligation for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court's juvenile division. The JFC dismissed the petition, finding it did not challenge specific budget items as unreasonable. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the JFC's dismissal, holding that the MOE is a minimum funding requirement, not a cap, and that the JFC properly dismissed the petition for lack of specificity and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-board-of-commissioners-of-the-county-of-franklin-state-of-missouri-ti-c99010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99257:2021-09-14","opinionId":"e163915c-0727-50e4-bac4-65346b004b01","slug":"karla-k-allsberry-respondentcross-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-in-his-indi-c99257","caseName":"Karla K. Allsberry, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, in his individual capacity, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99257","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-09-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Karla Allsberry, an elected circuit clerk, sought a declaration that Presiding Judge Patrick S. Flynn lacked authority to indefinitely suspend her and requested injunctive relief to be restored to her office. The circuit court declared Judge Flynn lacked such authority but denied injunctive relief, stating it could not enjoin another circuit judge. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the declaratory judgment, holding that an indefinite suspension constituted a de facto removal, which is beyond a presiding judge's administrative authority. The Court reversed the denial of injunctive relief, concluding that a circuit court has the power to grant injunctive relief against another circuit judge acting in an administrative capacity, and remanded the case for entry of the requested relief.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-k-allsberry-respondentcross-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-in-his-indi-c99257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84198:2021-09-07","opinionId":"26a0e712-a414-5d47-a848-d8c913c43dc3","slug":"travis-poke-v-independence-school-district-d84198","caseName":"Travis Poke\nvs. \nIndependence School District","caseNumber":"WD84198","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-09-07","year":2021,"display_summary":"Travis Poke sued the Independence School District for retaliatory discharge after he filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging his termination was pretextual. The trial court granted summary judgment for the School District, concluding it was protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statutory provisions for workers' compensation claims against employers, which include school districts, constitute an express waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliatory discharge claims, and that the sovereign immunity exception for state employees does not apply to school districts.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180260","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/travis-poke-v-independence-school-district-d84198","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109468:2021-08-10","opinionId":"b0981406-8306-5ab7-af01-2c97b9bbf39a","slug":"karla-l-allsberry-respondentcross-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-in-his-indi-109468","caseName":"Karla L. Allsberry, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, in his Individual Capacity, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109468","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-08-10","year":2021,"display_summary":"Judge Patrick S. Flynn appealed a judgment declaring he lacked authority to suspend elected circuit clerk Karla Allsberry, who cross-appealed the denial of injunctive relief. The appellate court found that Judge Flynn's indefinite suspension of Allsberry constituted an unauthorized de facto removal from office and that the trial court erred in denying injunctive relief. However, due to the general interest and importance of the issues, the court transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-l-allsberry-respondentcross-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-in-his-indi-109468","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36954:2021-07-29","opinionId":"ca9850b7-63fe-509a-aeed-98c763505a63","slug":"doris-jean-stalnacker-appellant-v-judge-david-dolan-respondent-d36954","caseName":"DORIS JEAN STALNACKER, Appellant\nvs.\nJUDGE DAVID DOLAN, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36954","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"Doris Jean Stalnacker sued Judge David Dolan for false imprisonment, alleging he erroneously revoked her probation and ordered her sentence executed after the probation period expired, leading to her serving 26 months in prison. The trial court dismissed Stalnacker's petition, finding the claim barred by judicial immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Judge Dolan had subject matter jurisdiction over probation matters, and thus judicial immunity applied even if he acted in excess of his authority.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","criminal-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/doris-jean-stalnacker-appellant-v-judge-david-dolan-respondent-d36954","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98711:2021-06-15","opinionId":"86f21307-c00e-573c-a38c-0d05ab632b2b","slug":"state-ex-rel-officer-sergeant-dirk-helms-and-chief-joe-edwards-relators-v-c98711","caseName":"State ex rel. Officer Sergeant Dirk Helms and Chief Joe Edwards, Relators, vs. The Honorable Joseph Alfred Rathert, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98711","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-06-15","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lonnie Decker filed a wrongful death petition against Sergeant Dirk Helms and Chief Joe Edwards, supervisors in the De Soto Police Department, alleging negligence in failing to adopt vehicular pursuit policies and train officers, which led to his daughter's death during a police pursuit. The circuit court denied their motions to dismiss based on official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the supervisors' duties were discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore official immunity barred the claims against them.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-officer-sergeant-dirk-helms-and-chief-joe-edwards-relators-v-c98711","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97983:2021-06-15","opinionId":"abb3baa7-df12-5af9-b682-2e8faf6dab25","slug":"michael-holmes-respondent-v-sarah-steelman-and-eric-schmitt-appellants-c97983","caseName":"Michael Holmes, Respondent, vs. Sarah Steelman and Eric Schmitt, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC97983","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-06-15","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael Holmes sued the Commissioner of the Office of Administration and the Attorney General, seeking payment from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a $2.5 million judgment against two former police officers who fabricated evidence leading to his wrongful conviction. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Holmes, declaring SLEF obligated to pay. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the right to payment from SLEF arises when a claim is made, not when the underlying conduct occurred. Since Holmes's claim was made in 2012, the 2013 version of the statute, which prohibits SLEF from paying claims against police officers, applied, and its application was not an unconstitutional retrospective law.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-holmes-respondent-v-sarah-steelman-and-eric-schmitt-appellants-c97983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98412:2021-06-01","opinionId":"5d0cdc0a-0242-5b78-a902-fe63bc43c3b0","slug":"missouri-national-education-association-et-al-respondents-v-missouri-depa-c98412","caseName":"Missouri National Education Association, et al., Respondents, vs. Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, et al., Appellants, Ferguson-Florissant School District, et al, Defendants.","caseNumber":"SC98412","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-06-01","year":2021,"display_summary":"The Missouri National Education Association and other labor unions challenged the constitutional validity of House Bill No. 1413, which significantly altered public labor relations in Missouri. The circuit court found the bill violated multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution and permanently enjoined its operation. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exemption of public safety labor organizations in HB 1413 violated the equal protection clause of article I, section 2 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court further held that the unconstitutional exemption permeated the entire bill, making severance inappropriate, and thus declared HB 1413 void in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177736","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/missouri-national-education-association-et-al-respondents-v-missouri-depa-c98412","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98517:2021-04-06","opinionId":"f537a3b9-1302-570c-9c39-5f51bcc3e4ea","slug":"elizabeth-butala-et-al-appellants-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-mis-c98517","caseName":"Elizabeth Butala, et al., Appellants, vs. The Curators of the University of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98517","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Mizzou BioJoint patients sued the Curators of the University of Missouri for injuries from unsuccessful surgeries, alleging negligent misrepresentation and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations. The circuit court dismissed the Curators and certified the judgments as final under Rule 74.01(b), but the court of appeals dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Missouri Supreme Court retransferred the case, holding that the circuit court's orders were eligible for certification as final judgments because they resolved all claims against the Curators. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the certification, sending the case back to the court of appeals for a decision on the merits.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176499","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elizabeth-butala-et-al-appellants-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-mis-c98517","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109082:2021-03-23","opinionId":"c16d0cab-3ae9-5bb2-82bc-aa5d975ccf11","slug":"melinda-s-wille-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-re-109082","caseName":"Melinda S. Wille, Appellant, v. The Curators of the University of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109082","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Melinda S. Wille sued the Curators of the University of Missouri, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed her damages claim based on sovereign immunity and later entered judgment for the Curators on her amended petition for injunctive relief after a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that sovereign immunity bars monetary damages claims against the Curators for workers' compensation retaliation. The court also found the trial court's denial of equitable relief was not against the weight of the evidence, as the termination decision was made before her injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melinda-s-wille-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-re-109082","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83921:2021-03-23","opinionId":"3c68fcf6-48d3-57dc-9b9b-0fd425825e4e","slug":"james-randolph-v-city-of-kansas-city-mo-et-al-d83921","caseName":"James Randolph\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, MO., et al","caseNumber":"WD83921","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"James Randolph appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Kansas City in his quiet title action over a strip of land. Randolph claimed ownership via adverse possession, arguing the City's 1906-07 condemnation of the land for a public street was procedurally flawed and never completed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Randolph's challenge was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations and that he lacked standing as he was not the property owner at the time of the condemnation.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175557","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-randolph-v-city-of-kansas-city-mo-et-al-d83921","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83764:2021-03-16","opinionId":"d388d4aa-98d6-529d-a7a0-785593567efc","slug":"brenda-estes-as-guardian-and-next-friend-for-jane-doe-v-the-board-of-trus-d83764","caseName":"Brenda Estes, As Guardian and Next Friend for Jane Doe\nvs.\nThe Board of Trustees of The Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund In Their Official Capacities, et al","caseNumber":"WD83764","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Brenda Estes, as next friend for Jane Doe, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund (MOPERM) and its board of trustees. The trial court had found MOPERM immune from claims of bad faith failure to settle and breach of fiduciary duty based on sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that MOPERM is not a public entity entitled to sovereign immunity and functions as a liability insurer with an implied duty to act in good faith. The court also concluded that MOPERM's enabling legislation does not prohibit Estes's claims or preclude them based on statutory payment limits.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brenda-estes-as-guardian-and-next-friend-for-jane-doe-v-the-board-of-trus-d83764","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83784:2021-03-09","opinionId":"62e559d0-6306-5ca3-aef1-bca33a699789","slug":"lisa-wilson-v-attorney-general-and-commissioner-of-administration-d83784","caseName":"Lisa Wilson\nvs. \nAttorney General and Commissioner of Administration","caseNumber":"WD83784","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lisa Wilson, whose father died after being struck by a Metrolink train, obtained a wrongful death judgment against the train operator, Flernoy, with an agreement to execute only against the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF). Wilson then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Flernoy, as an employee of the Bi-State Development Agency, was covered by the SLEF. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the State, finding Bi-State is not a state agency. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Bi-State is an interstate compact entity, not an agency of the State of Missouri, and therefore the SLEF is not available to satisfy the judgment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lisa-wilson-v-attorney-general-and-commissioner-of-administration-d83784","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98675:2021-03-08","opinionId":"1eeea00c-3f53-5677-bc90-5407199b6cf5","slug":"smh-respondent-v-eric-schmitt-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-missouri-a-c98675","caseName":"S.M.H., Respondent, vs. Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and Sarah Steelman, Commissioner of Administration, State of Missouri, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC98675","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-03-08","year":2021,"display_summary":"S.M.H. obtained a default judgment against a former teacher of the Transitional School District and sought to satisfy it from Missouri's Legal Expense Fund. The circuit court granted summary judgment for S.M.H., ordering the State to authorize payment from the Fund. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District is not an \"agency of the state\" for purposes of the Legal Expense Fund. Therefore, the Fund has no obligation to satisfy the judgment against the district employee.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/smh-respondent-v-eric-schmitt-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-missouri-a-c98675","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35323:2021-02-26","opinionId":"77bc08fc-94da-591d-85e7-8da2cbdd7177","slug":"ronald-g-wondel-norma-j-wondel-and-bettie-j-hunnius-petitioners-appellant-d35323","caseName":"RONALD G. WONDEL, NORMA J. WONDEL, and BETTIE J. HUNNIUS, Petitioners-Appellants/Cross-Respondents\nand\nJAMES BROCK CHARTER IV and STEPHANIE CONNELL, Intervenors/Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Respondents\nvs.\nCAMDEN COUNTY COMMISSION and GREG HASTY, BEVERLY THOMAS, DON WILLIAMS, Respondents/Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants\nand\nCLARK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. and ELLIS CLARK, TRUSTEE, Respondents/Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants\nand \nTHOMAS J. TANNER, Respondent/Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35323","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-26","year":2021,"display_summary":"Ronald and Norma Wondel, Bettie Hunnius, James Brock Charter IV, and Stephanie Connell appealed the Camden County Commission's decisions to vacate undeveloped roadways and common areas in a subdivision. The trial court reversed the Commission's orders due to improper notice and remanded the matter, but denied additional declaratory and injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Commission's proceedings were noncontested cases and that the vacation orders were void due to defective notice. The court also affirmed the denial of further relief, finding the appellants failed to prove sufficient harm.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-g-wondel-norma-j-wondel-and-bettie-j-hunnius-petitioners-appellant-d35323","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108982:2021-02-23","opinionId":"cebed943-f172-58eb-8400-d2e0f2044553","slug":"tierra-kemp-individually-and-as-the-surviving-mother-of-decedent-cameron-108982","caseName":"Tierra Kemp, Individually and as the Surviving Mother of Decedent, Cameron Keeper, Appellant, vs. Mancy McReynolds, R.N., Michele Coombs, R.N., Millicent Coleman, and Nycole Umphrey, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED108982","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Tierra Kemp, individually and as the surviving mother of Cameron Keeper, appealed the trial court's dismissal of her petition alleging medical malpractice and negligence against school nurses and teachers following her daughter's death. The trial court had granted motions to dismiss based on official immunity and the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the petition sufficiently pleaded breaches of ministerial duties, that official immunity did not apply to medical professionals in non-emergency situations as pleaded, and that the Coverdell Act did not clearly protect the teacher based on the petition's allegations.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","negligence","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tierra-kemp-individually-and-as-the-surviving-mother-of-decedent-cameron-108982","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108418:2021-02-09","opinionId":"8e70d902-ee62-58d1-a29a-f07cce7b48bc","slug":"the-fred-kemp-company-llc-respondent-v-kitrell-braselman-in-his-official-108418","caseName":"The Fred Kemp Company, LLC, Respondent, v. Kitrell Braselman, In His Official Capacity as the Director of Public Works, City of Black Jack, Department of Public Works, City of Black Jack, and City of Black Jack, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED108418","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"The City of Black Jack appealed a circuit court judgment that reversed an administrative hearing officer's decision holding The Fred Kemp Company, LLC responsible for a public nuisance. The circuit court found Kemp was not the owner or person in control of the property. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the City's ordinance exceeded its statutory authority by permitting it to hold a party responsible for a nuisance based on \"control\" rather than solely on ownership or occupancy.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-fred-kemp-company-llc-respondent-v-kitrell-braselman-in-his-official-108418","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83427:2021-02-02","opinionId":"312df78f-5b08-523b-b63f-d0e611f9b583","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-eric-schmitt-attorney-general-v-mun-choi-et-al-d83427","caseName":"State of Missouri, Ex Rel., Eric Schmitt, Attorney General\nvs. \nMun Choi, Et Al","caseNumber":"WD83427","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri, ex rel. Attorney General Eric Schmitt, challenged a University of Missouri System Rule prohibiting employees from possessing firearms in their vehicles on university campuses. The State argued the Rule conflicted with Section 571.030.6, RSMo, and was unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Rule was preempted by the statute to the extent it prohibited firearms in locked, non-visible vehicles. However, the court affirmed the trial court's finding that the remaining portions of the Rule, which prohibit other weapons and the discharge of firearms, are constitutional under strict scrutiny review. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-eric-schmitt-attorney-general-v-mun-choi-et-al-d83427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36319:2020-12-29","opinionId":"b05f2d7b-ddf3-581a-af78-41a23a4fde74","slug":"pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","caseName":"PAMELA S. ALLEN and KELLY D. ALLEN, Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, 32nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendant/Cross-Appellant\nCAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY and CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, Defendants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36319","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Pamela Allen sued the State of Missouri after falling down hazardous stairs in a courthouse basement, alleging personal injuries due to a dangerous condition of the State's property. The jury found the State 90% at fault, and the trial court entered judgment for Allen. On appeal, the State challenged the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a jury instruction regarding its control of the property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence of the State's knowledge of the dangerous condition and that the jury instruction was not erroneous.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83667:2020-12-22","opinionId":"844459f3-f6e6-5f0a-8a7d-db918f9a0a39","slug":"rylan-brantl-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-d83667","caseName":"Rylan Brantl\nvs. \nThe Curators of the University of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD83667","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-12-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Dr. Rylan Brantl sued The Curators of the University of Missouri for breach of contract and related state-law claims following the termination of his neurosurgery residency. The trial court dismissed Dr. Brantl's first amended petition with prejudice, finding his claims were barred by Missouri's five-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the claims accrued when Dr. Brantl received notice of his termination, not the formal termination date. The court further determined that federal supplemental jurisdiction tolling provisions did not apply to claims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, and Missouri's savings statute could not revive time-barred actions.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170695","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rylan-brantl-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-d83667","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:wd83756:2020-12-08","opinionId":"5f03f173-abde-5f94-9701-c39d6fbc7424","slug":"gb-jb-and-wb-et-al-v-crossroads-academy-central-street-d83756","caseName":"G.B., J.B., and W.B., et al\nvs. \nCrossroads Academy-Central Street","caseNumber":"WD83756","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-12-08","year":2020,"display_summary":"The Baker children were disenrolled from Crossroads Academy-Central Street because their parents refused to provide an original Department of Health and Senior Services' Form 11 for religious exemption from vaccination. The Bakers appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition, which sought a trial de novo or other administrative review, arguing the school's decision was unlawful and unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the right to a trial de novo under section 167.161 applies only to disciplinary actions, not to disenrollment for non-compliance with immunization requirements, and that other claims were precluded by claim splitting or unpreserved constitutional issues.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gb-jb-and-wb-et-al-v-crossroads-academy-central-street-d83756","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}