{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official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":"other","label":"Other","description":null,"totalCases":793,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":78},{"year":2019,"count":97},{"year":2020,"count":113},{"year":2021,"count":90},{"year":2022,"count":79},{"year":2023,"count":91},{"year":2024,"count":122},{"year":2025,"count":107},{"year":2026,"count":16}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113080:2026-03-10","opinionId":"9a1eb16d-5471-53da-b68b-9ea0ef8cdc59","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113080","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101091:2026-02-24","opinionId":"205e275f-5c24-5dfd-b38f-6c1079796a88","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101091","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101218:2026-02-24","opinionId":"48e594d4-de4b-58d8-b1ec-42b01ba8dee9","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101218","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of \"driving\" for IRTOs.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","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:sc101182:2026-01-23","opinionId":"295f8f79-ce98-5895-a23e-71838bed417c","slug":"in-re-brian-todd-goldstein-respondent-101182","caseName":"In re:  Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101182","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) alleged attorney Brian Todd Goldstein mishandled client funds and engaged in dishonest conduct. Following a de novo review, the Missouri Supreme Court found Goldstein violated Rules 4-1.15(a) (safeguarding of property) and 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Court determined that Goldstein intentionally and repeatedly engaged in misconduct, including diverting client payments to his personal account and misrepresenting firm representation. Consequently, the Court ordered Goldstein disbarred, finding that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors and disbarment was the appropriate baseline discipline.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230209","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-brian-todd-goldstein-respondent-101182","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101374:2025-12-29","opinionId":"9ab7606b-97c8-5f59-bdf4-fb3fa5626e46","slug":"in-re-the-honorable-matthew-ep-thornhill-respondent-101374","caseName":"In re:  The Honorable Matthew E.P. Thornhill, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101374","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline filed findings and recommendations against Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill for judicial misconduct, including inappropriate courtroom behavior, political activity from the bench, and an improper character reference. Judge Thornhill waived his right to a hearing and admitted the charges. The Commission recommended a six-month suspension followed by an 18-month return to service and then resignation. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected this recommendation, finding that Judge Thornhill's political activity in the courtroom alone warranted his immediate removal from office.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-honorable-matthew-ep-thornhill-respondent-101374","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87937:2025-12-16","opinionId":"8ebf41f1-9367-54f4-bebe-4d4dbac1ca2b","slug":"director-missouri-department-of-revenue-v-george-s-miller-d87937","caseName":"Director, Missouri Department of Revenue \nvs.\nGeorge S. Miller","caseNumber":"WD87937","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"George Miller appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to quash a garnishment filed by the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) to enforce a tax lien. Miller argued the tax lien was unenforceable because it was more than ten years old and had not been refiled or revived. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a certificate of tax lien filed with the circuit clerk under Section 143.902.1(2) has the full force and effect of a default judgment for enforcement purposes and is thus subject to the ten-year statute of limitations in Section 516.350.1. The court further held that applying this statute of limitations does not violate the Missouri Constitution as it only extinguishes the remedy under that specific provision, not the underlying tax debt.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228559","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/director-missouri-department-of-revenue-v-george-s-miller-d87937","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113332:2025-12-16","opinionId":"6f1fe533-be87-5313-8219-e26b84d52c66","slug":"sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","caseName":"S.C., Respondent, vs. Gabe Gore, City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Chief Robert J. Tracy, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chief of Police, Defendants, Colonel Michael Turner, Superintendent Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113332","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.C., who had previously pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor in Indiana, registered with Missouri's sex offender registry after moving to the state. He later filed a petition seeking a declaration of exemption from the registry and an order for removal of his name. The trial court granted his petition, finding him exempt and ordering removal. The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol appealed, arguing S.C. was not exempt and that removal was beyond the court's statutory authority. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that S.C.'s Indiana crimes did not meet Missouri's child abuse criteria for mandatory registration, and that an exempt person could have their name removed from the registry.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113083:2025-12-16","opinionId":"15acb59f-1b95-52c5-b957-1c5d4d0f7c0a","slug":"billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","caseName":"Billy Wagner, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113083","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Billy Wagner appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had applied the incorrect version of Rule 29.15(g) to determine the deadline for filing an amended motion and failed to adjudicate all claims in Wagner's pro se motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at sentencing governs and that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228697","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112983:2025-12-09","opinionId":"95ea2f52-be7b-5264-b277-aa14672bf105","slug":"michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","caseName":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr., Appellant, vs. Spencer Fane, LLP, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr. sued Spencer Fane LLP, alleging legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent nondisclosure related to his investment in a car dealership. Shanahan claimed Spencer Fane misrepresented his GM approval status and failed to disclose his lack of approval. The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer Fane on all claims, which Shanahan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Shanahan failed to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship, an affirmative misrepresentation, or a duty to speak.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113203:2025-12-02","opinionId":"fa56099d-4a94-5146-b13a-49353cbd613d","slug":"barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","caseName":"Barry E. Anderson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113203","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Barry E. Anderson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court had found abandonment by counsel and reviewed his untimely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the amended motion was untimely because the abandonment doctrine does not apply to unappointed counsel, and the motion court's post hoc appointment was invalid. However, the court affirmed the judgment because all claims in Anderson's timely pro se motion had been properly adjudicated.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113519:2025-11-18","opinionId":"1af34110-b3fd-594f-89ac-0b1753b5213d","slug":"oak-ridge-property-management-llc-et-al-appellants-v-robert-p-greene-et-a-113519","caseName":"Oak Ridge Property Management, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Robert P. Greene, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113519","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellants Oak Ridge Property Management, LLC, and WCMD, LLC, appealed an order granting sanctions against them. They argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they filed a voluntary dismissal, and that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction, finding the initial dismissal ineffective due to improper signature and that an amended dismissal could not relate back. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the merits of the sanctions order, holding that an order for sanctions is not a final, appealable judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227577","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/oak-ridge-property-management-llc-et-al-appellants-v-robert-p-greene-et-a-113519","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":26,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87540:2025-11-18","opinionId":"c0a6f51e-0ca5-5d3c-a4e7-1286b149b2e6","slug":"bradley-hult-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-services-d87540","caseName":"Bradley Hult\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Health and Senior Services","caseNumber":"WD87540","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bradley Hult, a registered nurse, was permanently placed on the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services' Employee Disqualification List after being found to have knowingly neglected a patient and falsified records. The circuit court affirmed Hult's placement but reduced the duration to eighteen months, finding the permanent placement arbitrary. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in part, upholding Hult's placement on the list, and reversed in part, reinstating the Department's decision for permanent placement, concluding it was not arbitrary or capricious.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bradley-hult-v-missouri-department-of-health-and-senior-services-d87540","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113032:2025-11-12","opinionId":"f739e9e2-6aab-5119-88b0-aa2027f75f85","slug":"david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","caseName":"David O. Love, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113032","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Love appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for making gang references during voir dire, failing to include a limiting instruction for prior bad acts in jury instructions, and failing to quash the jury panel due to a fair cross-section violation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that while his amended motion was untimely and counsel abandoned him, remand was unnecessary, and Love failed to prove his ineffective assistance claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100942:2025-11-04","opinionId":"81e5ae2a-ec38-512c-83e2-39edb0457357","slug":"diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","caseName":"Diana Maune, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Neil J. Maune, Respondent, vs. Marcus Raichle, Jr. and the Maune Raichle Law Firm, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100942","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Marcus Raichle and the Maune Raichle Law Firm appealed the circuit court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against the Estate of Neil J. Maune. The dispute arose from the distribution of life insurance proceeds after Neil Maune's death, with the Estate claiming the funds should have gone to a different entity. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that under Missouri's aggregate theory of partnerships, Maune and Raichle's individual signatures on the operating agreement bound their general partnership to arbitrate. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to sustain the motion to compel arbitration, deferring questions of arbitration scope to the arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86817:2025-11-04","opinionId":"cff59d62-7a7a-579f-8b51-8dea598a1dd9","slug":"savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","caseName":"Savannah Radmer\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86817","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Savannah Radmer appealed a judgment awarding her damages and attorney fees from her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, on claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. She challenged the reduction of her damages award and the constitutionality of a damages cap. MDOC cross-appealed several issues, including jury instructions and punitive damages. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals, concluding that the circuit court's judgment was not final due to its failure to rule on Radmer's requests for prejudgment interest and equitable relief.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","employment-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87587:2025-10-21","opinionId":"6191194c-5f71-5b8a-85c7-75e55878a75a","slug":"clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","caseName":"Clay Chastain\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87587","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Clay Chastain appealed pro se from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and its officials, in a case alleging malicious arrest, malicious prosecution, and election interference. The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The dismissal was based on Chastain's brief substantially failing to comply with numerous mandatory provisions of Rule 84.04, despite having been warned of deficiencies in an earlier filing.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113308:2025-10-14","opinionId":"ae53694f-4c8f-559a-bd24-abc2af661729","slug":"city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","caseName":"City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, Appellant, vs. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113308","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Creve Coeur appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, LLC, and other streaming service providers. Creve Coeur sought Video Service Provider (VSP) fees, arguing the providers fell under the Video Service Provider Act (VSPA) and were unjustly enriched. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a 2024 amendment to VSPA clarified its original meaning, excluding streaming content, thus no VSP fees were owed and no constitutional violation occurred, nor was there a basis for unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86942:2025-09-30","opinionId":"c038400f-d293-5d4d-8448-d6dbc29d6342","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nHoward Kristopher Moots","caseNumber":"WD86942","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Howard Kristopher Moots appealed his convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the circuit court's written judgment incorrectly stated his sentence as \"999 years\" when the oral pronouncement was \"life in prison.\" The State conceded the error. The appellate court remanded the case to the circuit court to enter a corrected written judgment reflecting the oral pronouncement of life in prison for the statutory sodomy counts, affirming the judgment in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112755:2025-09-23","opinionId":"97f418e2-82ce-5ac8-b0c2-39cdc866a3be","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38642:2025-09-09","opinionId":"dc3f27e3-2c48-57b8-8c1a-83bb079ca368","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL SCOTT MOUNT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38642","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113095:2025-08-26","opinionId":"6d9378b2-9f4b-51ae-985e-8417b3c94274","slug":"rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","caseName":"Rayne Littlefield, Appellant, vs. Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars of The United States, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113095","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rayne Littlefield sued the Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for VFW, finding it exempt from the MHRA as a bona fide private membership club. On appeal, Littlefield argued that VFW's public events and advertising negated its exempt status. The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that VFW's public activities do not, by themselves, alter its status as a bona fide private membership club, thus exempting it from MHRA liability.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223936","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","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:ed113320:2025-08-26","opinionId":"fd96804d-c201-5ab9-a034-338de862fdc0","slug":"temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","caseName":"Temujin Kensu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, vs. Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., d/b/a Access Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113320","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Temujin Kensu filed a class action against Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., alleging breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to a digital music service for prisoners. The trial court granted class certification for these claims, but Keefe Commissary appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification but reversed and remanded the case due to an improperly defined class that included a determination of the merits.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223937","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101176:2025-08-12","opinionId":"5e1092a4-44ea-5fbc-b9b5-9a7d3ac8da53","slug":"comprehensive-health-of-planned-parenthood-great-plains-et-al-respondents-101176","caseName":"Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC101176","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, which partially enjoined certain abortion-related state statutes and regulations at the request of Planned Parenthood. The Missouri Supreme Court determined it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that an appeal from a preliminary injunction, where the circuit court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes, does not invoke its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/comprehensive-health-of-planned-parenthood-great-plains-et-al-respondents-101176","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38618:2025-07-29","opinionId":"5b1d7f2f-0dcf-5bbb-9cac-edd9f4234e76","slug":"in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.Z., a minor child under seventeen years of age, \nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDRENS DIVISION, and, CRAWFORD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioners-Respondent\nv.\nD.Z., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38618","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father D.Z. appealed the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, D.J.Z., based on grounds of abuse and neglect, including a mental condition, severe physical abuse, and failure to protect the child. Father challenged the denial of his motion to reopen evidence, alleged failure to provide a social study, the findings of abuse and neglect, and the determination that termination was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on any of Father's seven points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","child-custody","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":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":"mo:sc100905:2025-07-22","opinionId":"a16301b6-06c7-50b6-95bc-ddcebf2006af","slug":"in-re-ryan-christopher-mccarty-respondent-100905","caseName":"In re:  Ryan Christopher McCarty, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100905","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"In this original attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Ryan Christopher McCarty disclosed confidential client information after his termination from the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD), his former client. McCarty argued his disclosures were required or protected by the First Amendment and Missouri's whistleblowing statute. The Missouri Supreme Court found McCarty violated Rules 4-1.9(c)(1) and 4-1.9(c)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rejecting his defenses. The Court suspended McCarty's license to practice law indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-ryan-christopher-mccarty-respondent-100905","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:sc100898:2025-07-22","opinionId":"5ce2fd97-3809-5985-adb5-ae7abbe9c25d","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100898","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one \"local government\" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of \"local government\" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222378","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100916:2025-07-22","opinionId":"b16e730b-05c0-5adc-8773-7225ce8ea6c5","slug":"christopher-a-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100916","caseName":"Christopher A. Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100916","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher A. Scott appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at Scott's sentencing date governed his proceedings, making his public defender's amended motion untimely. The Court further clarified that the abandonment doctrine, which could excuse untimely filings, applies only to formally appointed counsel, which Scott's public defender was not.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222375","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-a-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100916","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:sc100957:2025-07-22","opinionId":"6fe2fdf9-29c8-5d9f-8a2d-2b432fffef49","slug":"jessie-l-nelson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-and-cameron-d-wo-100957","caseName":"Jessie L. Nelson, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.\nand\nCameron D. Woods, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100957","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jessie Nelson and Cameron Woods appealed the overruling of their respective amended motions for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The Missouri Supreme Court found that appointed counsel for both movants had abandoned them by filing untimely amended motions due to miscalculating the deadlines. However, the Court affirmed the motion courts' judgments, concluding that remand for an abandonment inquiry was unnecessary given the clear record of abandonment, and that the motion courts did not clearly err in denying the ineffective assistance claims on their merits after evidentiary hearings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessie-l-nelson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-and-cameron-d-wo-100957","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:sc100944:2025-07-22","opinionId":"8b5edc45-cc8e-505a-aaa3-842d6aabdf0b","slug":"cs-appellant-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-criminal-justice-information-100944","caseName":"C.S., Appellant, vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Service; Lafayette Prosecuting Attorney, Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100944","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"C.S. appealed the denial of his amended petition to expunge a conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, specifically possessing a firearm while knowingly in possession of a controlled substance. He argued this was a \"marijuana offense\" eligible for expungement under Missouri's Amendment 3. The circuit court had expunged his marijuana possession conviction but denied expungement for the weapon charge. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unlawful use of a weapon offense is not a \"marijuana offense\" for expungement purposes, as its primary purpose is to prohibit conduct that endangers others, which is not limited by the constitutional expungement provision.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cs-appellant-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-criminal-justice-information-100944","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113004:2025-07-15","opinionId":"0640c051-89aa-5f88-b16f-76b723aa3904","slug":"richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","caseName":"Richard Hershey, Appellant, vs. The Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Hershey sued the Curators of the University of Missouri and four individual employees, alleging violations of the Campus Free Expression Act (CFEA). The circuit court dismissed claims against the individual defendants and granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the CFEA does not authorize a cause of action against individuals in their individual capacities and that Hershey's appellate brief failed to properly challenge the summary judgment by not connecting arguments to the summary judgment record.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222197","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87590:2025-07-08","opinionId":"2949c777-1970-59b1-85c5-b0f632140cbc","slug":"motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","caseName":"Motors Insurance Corporation\nvs.\nAutobot Towing, LLC","caseNumber":"WD87590","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Motors Insurance Corporation sued Autobot Towing, LLC for conversion after Autobot towed a truck owned by Insurer and later sold it for scrap to cover towing and storage fees. The circuit court found in favor of Insurer, awarding $35,015 in compensatory damages. On appeal, Autobot argued it complied with abandoned property statutes and that the damages were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Autobot failed to comply with the statutory notice and disposal requirements, and that the damage award was supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221960","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113000:2025-06-24","opinionId":"3c201dfa-d2c4-500a-9463-03833841b33d","slug":"christopher-shreves-appellant-v-mercy-gohealth-urgent-care-llc-et-al-resp-113000","caseName":"Christopher Shreves, Appellant, vs. Mercy-GoHealth Urgent Care, LLC, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113000","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Shreves appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice suit without prejudice, arguing that Section 538.225 provides 180 days, not 90, to file a motion for an extension of time to file affidavits of merit. Shreves had refiled his case without an affidavit and filed his motion for extension 135 days after refiling. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the statute unambiguously grants only 90 days to file an affidavit of merit or seek an extension.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221539","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-shreves-appellant-v-mercy-gohealth-urgent-care-llc-et-al-resp-113000","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113099:2025-06-17","opinionId":"63b4cfb3-a69c-541c-988c-70d349e7a8ab","slug":"brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","caseName":"Brian White, Respondent, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113099","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (SIF), appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to Brian White. White's award was based on a chest injury combined with a preexisting occupational shoulder disease. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that occupational diseases do not qualify as a preexisting disability for SIF liability under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii), consistent with a recent Supreme Court of Missouri decision. The case was remanded for the Commission to consider other potential bases for SIF liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221421","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100694:2025-06-10","opinionId":"b1b6b7d7-4915-5d3a-9431-91eadd55c85b","slug":"rma-appellant-v-blue-springs-r-iv-school-district-respondent-100694","caseName":"R.M.A., Appellant, vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100694","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"R.M.A., a transgender student, sued the Blue Springs R-IV School District under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for denying access to male restrooms and locker rooms. After a jury verdict in R.M.A.'s favor, the circuit court granted the School District's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the JNOV, holding that the term \"sex\" in the MHRA's public accommodation provision refers to biological classification as male or female, and R.M.A. failed to present evidence of discrimination based on male sex.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rma-appellant-v-blue-springs-r-iv-school-district-respondent-100694","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":26,"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:sd38552:2025-05-30","opinionId":"2b006fde-64ce-5331-b506-a83691e11445","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-defendant-appe-d38552","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nAMANDA JOY ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38552","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Amanda Joy Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury found her guilty. The trial court's judgment was reversed because the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court held that in cases of joint control of a vehicle, mere presence, proximity to a concealed firearm, nervousness, or driving the vehicle are not enough to establish conscious and intentional possession without additional incriminating circumstances, which were absent here.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-defendant-appe-d38552","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:ed112718:2025-05-27","opinionId":"ae14b4b9-37f4-5b14-a073-c12170fde142","slug":"delphi-management-solutions-inc-plaintiffrespondent-v-carl-bearden-et-al-112718","caseName":"Delphi Management Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Carl Bearden, et al., Defendants, AJO MO, LLC and Hi-Rise, LLC, Proposed Intervenors/Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112718","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"AJO MO, LLC and Hi-Rise, LLC, proposed intervenors, appealed a consent judgment between Delphi Management Solutions, Inc. and Heya Retail, LLC, concerning the ownership and management of marijuana dispensaries, and also appealed the denial of their motion to intervene. The appellate court dismissed the appeal regarding the consent judgment, finding the proposed intervenors lacked standing as they were not parties to the judgment and were not aggrieved. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, noting the appellants failed to provide a sufficient record for review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220920","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/delphi-management-solutions-inc-plaintiffrespondent-v-carl-bearden-et-al-112718","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113029:2025-05-20","opinionId":"f559d952-2d6e-5912-ad95-8e9f6b2e8ad7","slug":"3018-pershall-llc-appellant-v-outfront-media-llc-et-al-respondents-113029","caseName":"3018 Pershall, LLC, Appellant, v. Outfront Media, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113029","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC, which acquired a commercial property via a tax sale, sued Respondents Landmark and Outfront Media for declaratory judgment and to quiet title, asserting that their easement and billboard interest did not survive the tax sale. The trial court found for Respondents, holding their interests were valid and survived the sale. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Landmark held a valid easement not void for public policy and that Appellant failed to rebut evidence of proper notice to Respondents.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220757","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/3018-pershall-llc-appellant-v-outfront-media-llc-et-al-respondents-113029","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86907:2025-05-20","opinionId":"5bc30338-f65f-51e3-a50a-8a1df6b6cec8","slug":"thomas-g-blaylock-et-al-v-steven-r-blaylock-et-al-d86907","caseName":"Thomas G. Blaylock, et al.\nvs. \nSteven R. Blaylock, et al.","caseNumber":"WD86907","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Thomas and Martha Blaylock appealed the circuit court's judgment partitioning inherited real property in kind, arguing it resulted in great prejudice. Defendants cross-appealed, challenging the award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs' counsel, the distribution of partnership crop revenue, and the finding that Thomas made no draws from the partnership account. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no error in the partition in kind, no abuse of discretion in the attorney fee award, and no prejudicial error in the crop revenue distribution or the finding regarding Thomas's draws.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220714","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-g-blaylock-et-al-v-steven-r-blaylock-et-al-d86907","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112704:2025-05-06","opinionId":"24530230-6ee0-52c5-9f31-f0b7a380689a","slug":"barbara-j-bonin-as-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-thomas-r-kee-112704","caseName":"Barbara J. Bonin, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, Respondent, v. Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112704","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Barbara J. Bonin, as personal representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, sued Keener's stepchildren, Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, alleging undue influence, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The circuit court found in favor of the Estate, voiding beneficiary deeds, finding unjust enrichment, and awarding attorney's fees. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the award of attorney's fees, but affirmed the circuit court's findings regarding undue influence and unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barbara-j-bonin-as-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-thomas-r-kee-112704","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112842:2025-05-06","opinionId":"f8b7ca7d-3648-5d18-8da7-0a38311018ce","slug":"planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri-respondentcr-112842","caseName":"Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112842","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri appealed a trial court's partial enforcement of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Attorney General, which sought documents related to gender transition services for minors under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The trial court had partially enforced the CID but limited disclosure to documents not protected by HIPAA, requiring patient waivers. The appellate court affirmed that the CID was valid and enforceable under the MMPA, finding medical services are covered merchandise and the AG's authority is broad. However, it reversed the HIPAA ruling, clarifying that de-identified health information is not protected and patient waiver is not the sole disclosure method. The case was remanded for the trial court to order PPGR to respond to the CID in compliance with state and federal law.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220339","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/planned-parenthood-of-the-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri-respondentcr-112842","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86858:2025-04-29","opinionId":"460d44bc-96b6-5c2a-9c0d-1ac928adec2b","slug":"reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","caseName":"Reyna Hotel Corporation, et al. \nvs. \nLotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al.","caseNumber":"WD86858","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Reyna Hotel Corporation and North Kansas City Hotel Corporation (Plaintiff Hotels) sued Lotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. (Defendants) for tortious interference with a business expectancy and conversion after Defendants, managing a Kansas City homeless housing program, refused to pay Plaintiff Hotels' invoices. A jury found for Plaintiff Hotels, and the trial court entered judgment. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the judgment on the tortious interference claim and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendants' agency affirmative defense. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","other","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112322:2025-04-29","opinionId":"e9cf8a4a-d3b6-5553-82e6-c958aa47742f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deonte-m-robinson-appellant-112322","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deonte M. Robinson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112322","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deonte M. Robinson appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to disprove his claim of self-defense. The trial court, in a bench trial, rejected Robinson's self-defense claim. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the State provided ample evidence to show Robinson did not act in self-defense, specifically regarding his belief of imminent danger, the force used, and his failure to avoid the danger.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deonte-m-robinson-appellant-112322","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112433:2025-04-29","opinionId":"b76ffccd-3ea7-5bbd-add3-484545a31ae8","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jjm-appellant-112433","caseName":"In the interest of:  J.J.M., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112433","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"J.J.M., a juvenile, appealed the circuit court's findings that he committed acts constituting unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, felony possession of controlled substances (marijuana and THC), and unlawful use of a weapon. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, addressing J.J.M.'s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for each finding. The court clarified that THC possession is a Class D felony regardless of weight, distinguishing it from marijuana for charging purposes under Missouri statutes, and found sufficient evidence for all adjudicated offenses.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jjm-appellant-112433","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38308:2025-04-28","opinionId":"ffd36f9e-16ec-54f1-a158-40a09a72ed4d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jordan-niccole-williams-defendan-d38308","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJORDAN NICCOLE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38308","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jordan Niccole Williams appealed her conviction for abuse or neglect of a child resulting in serious physical injury. She argued that the Amended Information was insufficient and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Information adequately charged the offense and that there was sufficient evidence to prove Williams knowingly caused the victim's injuries by failing to protect him from serious physical abuse.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jordan-niccole-williams-defendan-d38308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38436:2025-04-24","opinionId":"8ba0501b-a26f-50fb-9068-b821b893bf17","slug":"mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38436","caseName":"MARK BECKMANN, CHERYL BECKMANN, WILLIAM ANGELL, SHERRY ANGELL, MARK EDGECOMB, MIKE EDGECOMB, GARY GARDNER, KATHY GARDNER, TOM RUTLEDGE, TARA RUTLEDGE, JERRY MAIER, BRENDA MAIER, MARK HAUPT, PAMELA HAUPT, JEFFREY ALAN PORTER, and JODY PORTER, Appellants\nv.\nJOY PHILLIPS and DANIEL JOSEPH GARNER, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38436","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellants sought a preliminary injunction against Respondents and posted a bond. After the circuit court ruled in favor of Respondents on the merits, it later entered judgment assessing damages on the injunction bond while the appeal on the merits was pending. Appellants appealed, arguing the circuit court lacked authority to enter the bond judgment at that time. The appellate court affirmed, finding the issue was not preserved and, even if preserved, the circuit court had authority to enter the judgment, which was stayed until the conclusion of the appeal on the merits.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38436","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:ed112985:2025-04-22","opinionId":"13b5d924-5743-5c60-bf74-22d86c47a641","slug":"board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-appellant-v-missouri-charter-p-112985","caseName":"Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112985","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Board of Education of the City of Saint Louis (SLPS Board) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The petition challenged the establishment of a charter school within its district, alleging procedural violations of charter school statutes. The trial court had dismissed the petition for lack of standing. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the SLPS Board possessed legally protectable interests conferred by statute, thereby establishing its standing to bring the action. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the petition.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219857","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-appellant-v-missouri-charter-p-112985","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38538:2025-04-17","opinionId":"da1afb55-b7cb-59b1-b401-4b5798405b42","slug":"chad-r-emmerson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d38538","caseName":"CHAD R. EMMERSON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38538","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Chad R. Emmerson appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to enter an Alford plea without fully informing him of the sentencing judge's practices and the 85% rule. Emmerson claimed this rendered his plea unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that Emmerson failed to demonstrate prejudice because he did not show that he would have proceeded to trial but for counsel's alleged errors, only that he would have entered a different type of guilty plea.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chad-r-emmerson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responden-d38538","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:sc100295:2025-04-15","opinionId":"65b6c38b-2a13-54c1-8f76-80bb878e001d","slug":"city-of-normandy-et-al-respondents-v-mike-kehoe-in-his-official-capacity-100295","caseName":"City of Normandy, et al, Respondents, vs. Mike Kehoe, in his official capacity as Governor of Missouri, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100295","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"The state appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion for relief from a permanent injunction, which had prevented the enforcement of statutes previously declared unconstitutional in \"City of Normandy I.\" The state argued that a subsequent change in decisional law, established in \"City of Aurora,\" rendered the statutes constitutional and made the injunction inequitable under Rule 74.06(b)(5). The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that a change in decisional law is neither necessary nor sufficient for Rule 74.06(b)(5) relief, and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the equities.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-normandy-et-al-respondents-v-mike-kehoe-in-his-official-capacity-100295","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:sc100878:2025-04-15","opinionId":"184e1eb1-e09c-503c-abc9-e16272fd7afc","slug":"in-re-circuit-attorney-22nd-judicial-circuit-ex-rel-christopher-dunn-resp-100878","caseName":"In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Christopher Dunn, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100878","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Dunn's murder convictions were vacated by the circuit court based on a motion filed by the St. Louis circuit attorney under section 547.031, citing actual innocence. The Attorney General, on behalf of the State, appealed this judgment. The Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer to determine if the State has a right to appeal such a judgment. The Court held that the State is an aggrieved party with a statutory right to appeal under section 512.020(5) and retransferred the case to the court of appeals to overrule the circuit attorney's motion to dismiss and proceed with the State's appeal on the merits.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","criminal-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-circuit-attorney-22nd-judicial-circuit-ex-rel-christopher-dunn-resp-100878","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112489:2025-04-15","opinionId":"4d0c41d5-2f4b-5b29-9ab5-5070696bbcbe","slug":"in-the-matter-of-the-care-and-treatment-of-wn-aka-whn-112489","caseName":"In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of:  W.N., A/K/A W.H.N.","caseNumber":"ED112489","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"W.N. appealed the circuit court's judgment finding him to be a sexually violent predator under Missouri's Sexually Violent Predator Act. He argued that the exclusion of his psychologist expert's testimony, which concerned alleged inconsistencies between a rape victim's statements and physical evidence, violated his due process rights. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony because the expert admitted she lacked the necessary medical qualifications to offer such opinions.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219637","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-the-care-and-treatment-of-wn-aka-whn-112489","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:sc100724:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c812d4c8-91a0-50d0-af79-7056f7a3fd86","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100724","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters filed a replevin claim against Jacob Dawson to recover vehicles he possessed after his father's death. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession and later entered a default judgment for damages, cancelling Dawson's jury trial due to his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and a pattern of obstructive behavior. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Dawson's constitutional claims regarding the right to a jury trial were unpreserved and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning him.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","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: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:ed112333:2025-03-25","opinionId":"92292e25-67df-51aa-93d4-371066db7c59","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-horatio-t-harris-appellant-112333","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Horatio T. Harris, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112333","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Horatio Harris appealed his convictions for three counts of child abuse and one count of involuntary manslaughter. He argued that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, claiming insufficient evidence that he caused the injuries or recklessly caused the death of Victim 1. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts on all counts and that Harris waived his argument regarding the involuntary manslaughter instruction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-horatio-t-harris-appellant-112333","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38504:2025-03-20","opinionId":"b4415798-a77d-5f1b-9367-2d74d16643bd","slug":"mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","caseName":"MARK WALTON, Appellant\nv.\nTREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38504","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark Walton appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for permanent and total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission found Walton's preexisting left-shoulder injury did not meet the fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold required by §287.220.3. On appeal, Walton argued that a portion of a prior enhanced PPD award should be added to meet this threshold. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that §287.220.3 does not permit using a prior enhanced PPD award to supplement an otherwise non-qualifying injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"moappwd:wd86126:2025-03-18","opinionId":"0f955b32-7fec-5b6d-81c4-e60e760af2db","slug":"jessica-a-goodman-saline-county-assessor-v-saline-county-commission-and-k-d86126","caseName":"Jessica A. Goodman, Saline County Assessor\nvs.\nSaline County Commission and Kile Guthrey, Jr., Presiding Commissioner, and Stephanie Gooden, Northern Commissioner, and Charles Monte Fenner, Southern Commissioner, and Cindi Sims, Saline County Collector","caseNumber":"WD86126","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jessica Goodman, Saline County Assessor, sued the Saline County Commission and Collector over the required percentage of property taxes for the assessment fund and the legality of compensating her employees for a day off. The circuit court dismissed her petition for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims concerning the assessment fund percentage and employee compensation, finding the latter violated the Missouri Constitution. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the claim regarding the county's reclassification from fourth-class to third-class, remanding that issue for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218550","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-a-goodman-saline-county-assessor-v-saline-county-commission-and-k-d86126","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100734:2025-03-18","opinionId":"2b4cee8a-7717-5f9c-878a-be48367b0f35","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-k-heathcock-appellant-100734","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian K. Heathcock, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100734","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Brian K. Heathcock appealed his conviction for first-degree tampering, arguing it violated double jeopardy because he had previously pleaded guilty to first-degree tampering in another county. The circuit court had overruled his motion to dismiss. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Heathcock's convictions were predicated on two distinct acts of first-degree tampering, thus not violating double jeopardy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-k-heathcock-appellant-100734","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:ed112759:2025-03-18","opinionId":"a40b0527-e255-5a3d-a69c-825732ab7378","slug":"angela-d-stevens-appellant-v-bjc-health-system-and-division-of-employment-112759","caseName":"Angela D. Stevens, Appellant, v. BJC Health System and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112759","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Angela Stevens appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that she lacked good cause for missing her unemployment benefits hearing. Stevens, initially disqualified for misconduct, claimed she missed the hearing due to a clerical error in noting the time. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that a clerical error in noting a hearing time does not constitute good cause for failing to appear, and dismissed other points not addressed by the Commission.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218540","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-d-stevens-appellant-v-bjc-health-system-and-division-of-employment-112759","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38678:2025-03-12","opinionId":"be1afd6b-31d2-5a0b-bb87-b467f2dbf2c0","slug":"state-ex-rel-robert-l-buggey-relator-v-the-honorable-gayle-lee-crane-resp-d38678","caseName":"STATE ex rel. ROBERT L. BUGGEY, Relator\nvs.\nTHE HONORABLE GAYLE LEE CRANE, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38678","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Buggey pleaded guilty to child molestation and was sentenced to fifteen years, with eligibility for probation contingent on a Sex Offender Assessment Unit (SOAU) assessment. The circuit court ordered the execution of his sentence without a hearing, based on the SOAU report. Buggey sought a writ of mandamus, arguing he was entitled to a hearing under section 559.115.3. The appellate court quashed the preliminary writ and denied the petition for a permanent writ, holding that Buggey was not entitled to a hearing because the SOAU report did not indicate successful completion of the program.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-robert-l-buggey-relator-v-the-honorable-gayle-lee-crane-resp-d38678","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112620:2025-03-11","opinionId":"5b2f2bf3-b0f6-5e80-bf73-610128c12ff5","slug":"harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","caseName":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, Respondent, v. City of Cottleville, MO, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112620","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, sought to construct a mixed-use project, receiving final plan and construction plan approval from the City of Cottleville. The City later issued a stop work order, claiming construction had not begun within one year, causing the final plan to expire under municipal code section 405.390(C). The City's Board of Adjustment upheld the order, but the trial court reversed, finding construction had begun. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the work performed by Harmony Pointe constituted \"construction\" under the municipal code, thus the final plan had not expired.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218552","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100727:2025-03-04","opinionId":"3e857d41-07b6-589d-b797-c83c01a85d00","slug":"in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","caseName":"In re: Paul Eric Petruska, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100727","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Paul Eric Petruska violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended an indefinite suspension with a three-year stay and probation, which Petruska accepted, but OCDC rejected. The Missouri Supreme Court, conducting a de novo review, found Petruska violated Rules 4-1.2(a), 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-3.3, and 4-8.4(c) by settling a case without client authority, misrepresenting facts to the court and clients, and engaging in dishonest conduct. The Court determined disbarment was the baseline sanction under ABA Standard 6.11, making Petruska ineligible for probation, and ultimately imposed an indefinite suspension with no leave to apply for reinstatement for three years.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112455:2025-03-04","opinionId":"076b9004-c1c5-5628-a02b-af954922a61d","slug":"rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","caseName":"Rochelle Ameer, Appellant, vs. Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes, Defendants.","caseNumber":"ED112455","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rochelle Ameer appealed the dismissal of her product liability and negligence claims against Lyft, Inc., after her son, a Lyft driver, was killed during a carjacking initiated through the Lyft App. The trial court had dismissed the claims for failure to state a cause of action, finding the App was not a product and no duty existed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mobile ridesharing application can be considered a product for product liability purposes and that the petition adequately alleged Lyft's duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, remanding for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death","other","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218057","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","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:wd87106:2025-02-25","opinionId":"13623b36-2122-5e12-9859-e169b6289d07","slug":"jackson-county-missouri-v-jerry-hardy-stamps-d87106","caseName":"Jackson County, Missouri\nvs.\nJerry Hardy Stamps","caseNumber":"WD87106","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jerry Stamps appealed his conviction for violating a Jackson County disorderly conduct ordinance, which stemmed from him berating and threatening county employees at the courthouse. On appeal, Stamps argued the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violating his First Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding Stamps waived his constitutional challenges by not raising them before trial. Alternatively, the court held that even if not waived, his statements constituted unprotected \"fighting words\" and the ordinance was not unconstitutional as applied.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217695","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jackson-county-missouri-v-jerry-hardy-stamps-d87106","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87187:2025-02-25","opinionId":"557ada8c-9fe0-5e67-852d-cca614174cb2","slug":"jamie-snethen-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d87187","caseName":"Jamie Snethen\nvs.\nMissouri State Board of Nursing","caseNumber":"WD87187","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jamie Snethen, a licensed practical nurse, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the Missouri State Board of Nursing's order. The Board imposed additional discipline on Snethen's nursing license after she violated the terms of her probation, which included alcohol abstinence and daily check-ins. Snethen argued the Board abused its discretion in denying a continuance, that the discipline was unsupported by evidence, and that the alcohol restrictions violated the ADA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no prejudice from the continuance denial, sufficient evidence for the discipline, and that Snethen waived her challenge to the 2018 order and failed to prove an ADA violation for the 2023 order.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-snethen-v-missouri-state-board-of-nursing-d87187","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112446:2025-02-25","opinionId":"ee5c966f-2ab4-57eb-8fdb-ecf2c4caa423","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jmj-jr-112446","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.M.J., Jr.","caseNumber":"ED112446","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"J.M.J., a juvenile, appealed the trial court's judgment certifying him for prosecution under general law, challenging the court's findings on his sophistication, racial disparity, and the effectiveness of his counsel. The appellate court affirmed the certification, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the statutory certification factors, particularly given the serious nature of the alleged offenses. The court also found J.M.J. failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged failure to call an expert, thus denying his ineffective assistance claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217795","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jmj-jr-112446","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":12,"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":"moappsd:sd38166:2025-02-21","opinionId":"c1618cca-cd5c-5705-a1fa-8204b0265250","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kenton-cowgill-appellant-d38166","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nKENTON COWGILL, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38166","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kenton Cowgill appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, driving while intoxicated, resisting a lawful stop, and second-degree trafficking, which arose from an incident where he fled police, caused a fatal car crash, and was found with methamphetamine. He challenged the denial of a motion to disqualify the judge, the exclusion of evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence for his DWI and trafficking convictions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, declining plain error review for the unpreserved claims and finding sufficient evidence for the remaining convictions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kenton-cowgill-appellant-d38166","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112410:2025-02-11","opinionId":"118b8dac-96d4-52b1-88f9-32384b867427","slug":"john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","caseName":"John L. Durnell, Respondent, vs. Monsanto Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112410","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"John L. Durnell sued Monsanto Company, alleging that exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims including strict liability failure to warn. A jury found in favor of Durnell on the strict liability failure to warn claim, awarding $1.25 million in compensatory damages. Monsanto appealed, arguing that Durnell's claim was both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the state-law claim was not preempted by FIFRA.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","other","negligence","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","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:wd86669:2025-02-11","opinionId":"4b72d74c-40e5-5a27-9f36-726921a0c948","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-scott-j-parrish-d86669","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nScott J. Parrish","caseNumber":"WD86669","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Scott J. Parrish appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he acted knowingly. The trial court found Parrish guilty after a bench trial, sentencing him to probation. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Parrish receiving multiple notices of his registration obligation, coupled with his intentional decision not to register based on his own legal research, was sufficient to establish the requisite knowing mental state.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-scott-j-parrish-d86669","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:ed112529:2025-01-28","opinionId":"e8092b77-3ee7-5ce3-b993-ebe7d814f4bd","slug":"mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-112529","caseName":"Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112529","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mouna Apperson appealed the trial court's directed verdict against his defamation claims against Natasha Kaminsky and Adriane Norman. Apperson alleged Kaminsky and Norman defamed him by calling him a rapist, serial abuser, and tax evader, and that Kaminsky acted as Norman's agent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Apperson failed to present sufficient evidence of actual reputational harm beyond his own testimony for the defamation claims. The court also found Apperson failed to establish a principal-agent relationship between Kaminsky and Norman based solely on a social media post.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mouna-apperson-fka-nicholas-apperson-appellant-v-natasha-kaminsky-et-al-r-112529","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38421:2025-01-22","opinionId":"f7e1a5f1-71a9-554b-930c-db50f0d955db","slug":"mike-seitz-appellant-v-advanced-welding-manufacturing-inc-dba-advanced-we-d38421","caseName":"MIKE SEITZ, Appellant\nv.\nADVANCED WELDING & MANUFACTURING, INC., D/B/A ADVANCED WELDING & ORNAMENTAL IRON, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38421","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Mike Seitz sued Advanced Welding & Manufacturing, Inc. for breach of contract and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) regarding a gate installation, while Advanced Welding counterclaimed for the unpaid balance and attorney's fees under the Private Prompt Pay Act. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Advanced Welding on all claims, awarding attorney's fees and interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Seitz's arguments regarding attorney's fees and UCC preemption were not preserved for review, and his MMPA claims failed due to reliance on factual inferences contrary to the judgment without following the proper analytical framework for challenging factual findings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mike-seitz-appellant-v-advanced-welding-manufacturing-inc-dba-advanced-we-d38421","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112681:2025-01-21","opinionId":"ecb89b5d-2f40-5289-9dd2-4a14d4ec832a","slug":"4021-iowa-llc-respondent-v-ka-delmar-property-llc-et-al-appellant-112681","caseName":"4021 Iowa, LLC, Respondent, vs. K&A Delmar Property, LLC, et al., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112681","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"K&A Delmar Property, LLC (Appellants) appealed the circuit court's reinstatement of a default judgment in favor of 4021 Iowa, LLC (Iowa), which arose from a breach of contract dispute. The circuit court had previously set aside the default judgment, but the appellate court reversed that decision and remanded for reinstatement. On this appeal, Appellants challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction to award damages exceeding the pleadings, the sufficiency of evidence for attorneys' fees, and the post-judgment interest accrual date. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, denying all three points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/4021-iowa-llc-respondent-v-ka-delmar-property-llc-et-al-appellant-112681","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38331:2025-01-17","opinionId":"18f405e6-0ffc-52e8-a05d-473b9a6117cf","slug":"jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","caseName":"JANE DOE, a minor by next friend, T.N., Appellant\nvs.\nFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PIERCE CITY, MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38331","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jane Doe, a minor, sued First Baptist Church of Pierce City (FBC) for negligence, alleging sexual assaults suffered while participating in FBC's youth ministries program. The circuit court granted summary judgment for FBC, concluding that the First Amendment barred the negligence claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the First Amendment prohibits courts from entertaining negligence claims against religious organizations that would require excessive entanglement in religious doctrine, policy, and administration. The court also found that FBC was not required to plead the First Amendment as an affirmative defense, as it negates an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","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:sd38445:2025-01-13","opinionId":"e3f115e8-e5d1-5a49-b115-78fcc6c506df","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nAMANDA M. MIRE, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Amanda M. Mire was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court granted her motions to suppress statements and physical evidence, specifically blood draw results. The trial court found that Mire was involuntarily administered Versed, which prevented her from knowingly and voluntarily consenting to a blood draw or waiving her Miranda rights. The State appealed, and the appellate court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court clearly erred by inferring the cognitive effects of Versed without expert testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38339:2025-01-09","opinionId":"4047edd7-eeba-5725-9734-0f86d15cfe81","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-yaggy-defendant-appellant-d38339","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN YAGGY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38339","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Yaggy appealed his convictions for resisting arrest and second-degree kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. It held that Yaggy waived his first point of error by introducing evidence, and for the second point, it found sufficient evidence to support the mens rea for both the kidnapping and resisting arrest charges.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-yaggy-defendant-appellant-d38339","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38278:2024-12-31","opinionId":"5822f50e-fe30-5721-a463-5ccffd404e1e","slug":"mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","caseName":"MARK BECKMANN, CHERYL BECKMANN, WILLIAM ANGELL, SHERRY ANGELL, MARK EDGECOMB, MIKE EDGECOMB, GARY GARNER, KATHY GARDNER, TOM RUTLEDGE, TARA RUTLEDGE, JERRY MAIER, BRENDA MAIER, MARK HAUPT, PAMELA HAUPT, JEFFREY ALAN PORTER, and JODY PORTER, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Appellants\nv.\nJOY PHILLIPS and DANIEL JOSEPH GARDNER, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38278","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, property owners in an unrecorded development, sought to enjoin Respondents, other property owners, from constructing a community boat dock and using their property for parking, arguing Cherry Lane was a private road and deed restrictions prohibited such use. The trial court denied Appellants' claims and granted Respondents' counterclaim, declaring Cherry Lane a public road. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Respondents had standing to assert common law dedication, the deed restrictions did not clearly prohibit the intended parking use, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing late-disclosed witnesses to testify in the bench trial.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38372:2024-12-31","opinionId":"3aa166e5-d950-58d3-a383-7ec5ceec4c6a","slug":"dd-petitioner-respondent-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-respondent-appel-d38372","caseName":"D.D., Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38372","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Driver D.D. sought to expunge records related to his class-D felony conviction for resisting arrest. The Missouri State Highway Patrol opposed, arguing the offense was ineligible for expungement under section 610.140, which excludes felonies where death is an element. The circuit court granted expungement, interpreting the statute to require actual death as a required element. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the resisting arrest statute's reference to a \"substantial risk of serious physical injury or death\" does not make death an element for expungement ineligibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dd-petitioner-respondent-v-missouri-state-highway-patrol-respondent-appel-d38372","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112584:2024-12-24","opinionId":"72901465-bf78-548b-8b00-d94182048e3e","slug":"andrew-niemeier-respondent-v-charles-russell-williams-iii-and-green-peak-112584","caseName":"Andrew Niemeier, Respondent, v. Charles Russell Williams, III and Green Peak Capital Partners, LLC, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112584","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Andrew Niemeier sued Charles Russell Williams III and Green Peak Capital Partners, LLC, alleging breach of an oral contract and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fifty percent ownership stake in Green Peak. The jury found in Niemeier's favor on both claims, and the circuit court awarded damages and specific performance. The appellate court reversed the judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding no mutual agreement on material terms, and vacated the associated damages and specific performance. However, the court affirmed the judgment on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, concluding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an actionable misrepresentation, reasonable reliance, and intent not to perform.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215957","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-niemeier-respondent-v-charles-russell-williams-iii-and-green-peak-112584","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37579:2024-12-20","opinionId":"2c479e40-8e3b-5de5-af01-96e0d069be17","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-thompson-defendant-appella-d37579","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKEITH THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37579","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Keith Thompson was convicted as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree statutory rape, third-degree child molestation, and sexual misconduct with a child by indecent exposure. On appeal, Thompson challenged the denial of a mistrial, argued double jeopardy for the sexual misconduct conviction, and contended the evidence was insufficient for the sexual misconduct charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Thompson's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-thompson-defendant-appella-d37579","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86511:2024-12-17","opinionId":"fb8713c5-f2c1-5906-a17f-7f83a7cd8e44","slug":"ronald-jordan-v-james-h-coffman-d86511","caseName":"Ronald Jordan\nvs.\nJames H. Coffman","caseNumber":"WD86511","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ronald Jordan, an inmate, sued his former prison supervisor, James H. Coffman, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging involuntary servitude and cruel and unusual punishment for being compelled to work on Coffman's personal property. The trial court dismissed Jordan's claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Jordan failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under § 1983, as his allegations did not establish a violation of his Thirteenth or Eighth Amendment rights, nor did a state law violation alone suffice for a § 1983 claim.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other","criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215518","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-jordan-v-james-h-coffman-d86511","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":12,"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:ed111919:2024-12-10","opinionId":"d9ad527b-455e-5caf-b244-817152ca5c80","slug":"marlo-r-james-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111919","caseName":"Marlo R. James, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111919","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Marlo R. James appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. James claimed counsel misinformed him that he would receive a drug treatment program if he pleaded guilty, leading him to forgo a trial. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's decision, finding that plea counsel credibly testified he made no such promise and that James understood the plea court had the final sentencing authority.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marlo-r-james-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111919","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:sc100543:2024-12-10","opinionId":"0faff21f-e238-5b93-b452-df10ef789dd1","slug":"in-re-todd-n-agron-respondent-100543","caseName":"In re: Todd N. Agron, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100543","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, Todd Agron stipulated to professional misconduct, including making payments to an illicit pay-per-lead referral service and knowingly making dishonest statements to investigators. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the Disciplinary Hearing Panel's recommendation and the parties' stipulations regarding violations and aggravating/mitigating factors. The Court concluded that suspension was the appropriate discipline, departing from disbarment due to mitigating factors but rejecting probation or a stayed suspension.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-todd-n-agron-respondent-100543","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:sc100574:2024-12-10","opinionId":"ed4f33f0-4a0a-5216-a24f-c9572f1b45d4","slug":"millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","caseName":"Millstone Property Owners Association, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, Fogarty Farms, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100574","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Millstone Property Owners Association sued Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis for breach of subdivision restrictions, including failure to pay assessments and maintain lots. Nithyananda counterclaimed, arguing that developer rights were not properly transferred to Fogarty Farms (who created the association) and that the restrictions were abandoned. Nithyananda also challenged the transfer of a common lake lot. The circuit court found developer rights were transferred, restrictions were not abandoned, Nithyananda must comply, and the lake lot remained common ground, awarding attorney fees to the association. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment in all respects.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112075:2024-12-03","opinionId":"027173e4-26ee-52f5-bbca-aa0b400b6456","slug":"sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","caseName":"Sharlean Gordon, Appellant, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sharlean Gordon sued Monsanto Company, alleging that her prolonged exposure to Roundup and its ingredient glyphosate caused her to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims of strict liability product defect, strict liability failure to warn, and negligence. Following a jury verdict in favor of Monsanto, and the trial court's denial of Gordon's motion for a new trial, Gordon appealed. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the exclusion of a scientific publication, the restriction of expert testimony, or the admission of foreign regulatory documents.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","personal-injury","negligence","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","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:ed112161:2024-11-26","opinionId":"d5b19bf5-1248-5286-b00e-2101bef59772","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-javontea-jones-appellant-112161","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Javontea Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112161","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Javontea Jones was found guilty by a jury of felony possession of an unlawful item at a prison. On appeal, Jones claimed the circuit court plainly erred in finding that he waived his right to testify due to his disruptive behavior during trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Jones forfeited his right to testify through his disruptive and defiant conduct, and his general assertions of rights lacked the required specificity for preservation.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214918","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-javontea-jones-appellant-112161","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112169:2024-11-19","opinionId":"c0c95a70-27c1-59b1-929d-2201f6e1e499","slug":"denny-labantschnig-respondent-v-royal-gate-inc-et-al-appellants-112169","caseName":"Denny Labantschnig, Respondent, vs. Royal Gate, Inc. et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112169","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dr. Cyrus Alizadeh appealed a trial court judgment finding him liable on a personal guaranty for a loan obtained by Royal Gate, Inc. from Denny Labantschnig. Alizadeh challenged the interpretation of the guaranty, the effect of a repayment extension, the tender and consideration of the guaranty, and the award of attorneys' fees. The Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, finding the guaranty unambiguously incorporated the underlying agreement and that Alizadeh was not discharged from liability. The court also granted Labantschnig's motion for appellate attorneys' fees and remanded for their determination.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/denny-labantschnig-respondent-v-royal-gate-inc-et-al-appellants-112169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112466:2024-11-05","opinionId":"d9443dbf-c725-5780-9c99-1b2dad2e8b01","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, MO, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112466","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, sought a conditional use permit for a convenience store, which was denied by the City of St. Louis Board of Adjustment. Double AA then filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the City's alleged practice of \"aldermanic courtesy\" as unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, concluding that a writ of certiorari under Section 89.110 was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an adequate remedy at law was available through certiorari, thus precluding the declaratory judgment action.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214277","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-mo-respondent-112466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38164:2024-10-29","opinionId":"b07e28bb-3704-5add-b706-74df0d99db44","slug":"lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","caseName":"LUCAS HOLTERMAN, Appellant\nvs.\nLAVERNE COPELAND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38164","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lucas Holterman, an employee of Holterman Logging, was severely injured by a falling dead tree while working on land owned by Laverne Copeland. Holterman sued Copeland on theories of premises liability and inherently dangerous activity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Copeland, finding that she did not retain control of the property and logging was not inherently dangerous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that logging is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law and that Copeland owed no duty of care under premises liability due to the independent contractor rule.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","other","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","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":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111907:2024-10-29","opinionId":"9c080d1a-c902-5e68-bf6e-7a7cd78c6a43","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kennice-l-brock-appellant-111907","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kennice L. Brock, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111907","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Kennice L. Brock appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence of deliberation. Brock shot the victim three times after repeatedly threatening him and then fled the scene without rendering aid. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding ample evidence from which the jury could infer deliberation, including Brock's threats, his actions of aiming and firing multiple times, and his immediate flight.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kennice-l-brock-appellant-111907","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38312:2024-10-29","opinionId":"2ccaacad-3ff3-551c-93c7-d948fee5e226","slug":"in-re-robert-j-branson-petitioner-v-michele-buckner-warden-south-central-d38312","caseName":"IN RE ROBERT J. BRANSON, Petitioner\nv.\nMICHELE BUCKNER, WARDEN, SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38312","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert J. Branson pleaded guilty to first-degree child molestation and was sentenced to life imprisonment, though the State only alleged facts supporting a class B felony, which carried a maximum of 15 years. Branson sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The appellate court granted the writ, vacating Branson's convictions and sentences, and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the illegal sentence constituted a sentencing defect and a material mistake in the plea agreement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-robert-j-branson-petitioner-v-michele-buckner-warden-south-central-d38312","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38231:2024-10-23","opinionId":"9321d1ce-f5c0-5ba2-9bb6-6d85fd2eded0","slug":"henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","caseName":"HENRY COUNTY and TANEY COUNTY, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nW. ARCHIE DUNN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38231","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Henry and Taney Counties sued W. Archie Dunn, the former Sheriff of Jasper County, seeking to hold him personally liable under §50.650 for the cost of boarding Jasper County prisoners in their jails. The Jasper County Commission had refused to pay these costs, arguing they were not budgeted. The trial court granted summary judgment against Dunn, finding him personally liable. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the plain language of §50.650, which imposes personal liability for purchasing \"supplies, materials or equipment,\" does not apply to the cost of boarding prisoners.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38395:2024-10-17","opinionId":"99a9943e-05d8-564c-ae10-7c297294e0ea","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-auguste-h-rohde-appellant-d38395","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nAUGUSTE H. ROHDE, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38395","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Auguste H. Rohde appealed his conviction for possessing a forging instrumentality. Rohde was found with a squeeze bottle containing yellow liquid after being ordered to submit a urine sample for a drug test, a device commonly used to subvert such tests. On appeal, Rohde argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he had the purpose of committing forgery. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences were sufficient for the jury to conclude Rohde possessed the item with the intent to commit forgery.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-auguste-h-rohde-appellant-d38395","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38257:2024-10-04","opinionId":"9dfdae86-979a-515b-b7e2-5fc60bbbdbcf","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-ray-durison-defendant-ap-d38257","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nMICHAEL RAY DURISON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38257","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Ray Durison, an inmate, was convicted of first-degree assault against a special victim, armed criminal action, and disarming a correctional officer after a physical altercation with a corrections officer at a hospital. During the struggle, Durison took the officer's Taser and stunned him. On appeal, Durison challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his assault and armed criminal action convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Durison's arguments.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-ray-durison-defendant-ap-d38257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37844:2024-10-01","opinionId":"24a8bafd-ae42-58f6-990a-2e56e2b4fe45","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-walls-appellant-d37844","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nvs.\nDEANDRE WALLS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37844","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deandre Walls appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and other charges, arguing the trial court erred in sentencing him under a specific subsection of the unlawful use of a weapon statute without a jury finding that he shot from a motor vehicle. He also contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, asserting a lack of probable cause for its warrantless seizure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Walls' points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-walls-appellant-d37844","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:sc100742:2024-09-20","opinionId":"15eebb1c-0535-50eb-b803-8e0dfeae8e89","slug":"mary-elizabeth-anne-coleman-kathleen-anne-forck-hannah-sue-kelly-and-marg-100742","caseName":"Mary Elizabeth Anne Coleman, Kathleen Anne Forck, Hannah Sue Kelly, and Marguerite Ann \"Peggy\" Forrest, Respondents, vs. John R. Ashcroft, Respondent, and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom and Anna Fitz-James, Intervenors-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100742","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-09-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Opponents challenged the Secretary of State's certification of Amendment 3 for the ballot, arguing the initiative petition failed to disclose all statutes and constitutional provisions it would repeal and violated the single-subject rule. The circuit court agreed with the disclosure claim and ordered Amendment 3 removed from the ballot. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the initiative petition complied with the constitutional and statutory form requirements, did not violate the single-subject rule, and ordered Amendment 3 placed on the 2024 general election ballot.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-elizabeth-anne-coleman-kathleen-anne-forck-hannah-sue-kelly-and-marg-100742","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85931:2024-09-17","opinionId":"576cffc0-3fc4-58a5-9bd3-b5df27aa7515","slug":"jose-lopez-v-cedar-fair-lp-d85931","caseName":"Jose Lopez\nvs.\nCedar Fair, L.P.","caseNumber":"WD85931","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jose Lopez, who is blind, sued Cedar Fair, L.P., alleging disability discrimination in public accommodation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) related to incidents at an amusement park's waterslide and bumper cars. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Cedar Fair after a jury trial, and Lopez appealed, raising eleven points of error concerning evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, closing arguments, and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error or prejudice in the challenged rulings, and declining to review unpreserved instructional errors.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jose-lopez-v-cedar-fair-lp-d85931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38260:2024-09-13","opinionId":"fe98eb7e-2be9-54dd-a9a4-bb7d1a4a4374","slug":"joshua-rainey-defendant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-plaintiff-responden-d38260","caseName":"JOSHUA RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant, \nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD38260","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joshua Rainey pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges and subsequently filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Rainey claimed counsel failed to adequately inform him of his right to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGRI), failed to enter an NGRI plea, and failed to inform the court of a psychiatric report supporting an NGRI defense. The motion court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's findings that counsel acted reasonably and Rainey's plea was knowing and voluntary.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-rainey-defendant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-plaintiff-responden-d38260","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38419:2024-09-12","opinionId":"3e6bdc99-2d46-5c6c-9d7a-9492a8db424c","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-joanna-wrinkle-relator-v-the-honorable-david-col-d38419","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. JOANNA WRINKLE, Relator\nv\nTHE HONORABLE DAVID COLE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38419","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Relator Joanna Wrinkle sought a writ of prohibition to compel the circuit court to discharge her from probation, arguing the court lost jurisdiction to act after her probation expired. The circuit court had suspended Wrinkle's probation and set a violation hearing before expiration but failed to notify her, then rescheduled the hearing for after her probation ended. The appellate court made the preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that while the circuit court manifested an intent to revoke probation, it failed to make every reasonable effort to notify Wrinkle and conduct the hearing before her probation expired, thus losing authority.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-joanna-wrinkle-relator-v-the-honorable-david-col-d38419","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":"moappsd:sd38313:2024-08-28","opinionId":"a83c2edf-cb39-5ad3-9920-4b013b919f8f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-louis-smith-appellant-d38313","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nTIMOTHY LOUIS SMITH, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38313","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Louis Smith called 911 for a medical emergency, and after EMS cleared him, he asked a law enforcement officer for a ride. The officer agreed on the condition of a consent search, which revealed methamphetamine residue and a syringe cap. Smith was convicted of drug offenses, but argued on appeal that he was immune under Missouri's Good Samaritan Law, section 195.205, because the evidence was found \"as a result of\" his call for medical assistance. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute requires a stronger causal connection than \"but for\" causation, and the evidence was found due to his consent to search, not directly from seeking medical assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-louis-smith-appellant-d38313","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112224:2024-08-27","opinionId":"cbe89e4f-4b7b-5b82-a4d0-eab309d1a3d3","slug":"michael-bosma-appellant-v-siliga-systems-inc-respondent-112224","caseName":"Michael Bosma, Appellant, vs. Siliga Systems, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112224","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Bosma appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing his derivative action against Siliga Systems, Inc. and its board members, which involved claims of breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. It found that Bosma's brief substantially failed to comply with Rule 84.04(c) by providing only a vague procedural history and insufficient page references in his statement of facts, which impeded the court's ability to review the merits of the case.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210898","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-bosma-appellant-v-siliga-systems-inc-respondent-112224","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111649:2024-08-20","opinionId":"b0a6f31d-4097-549a-b8a7-d3888f78c3c9","slug":"gregory-hill-bey-appellant-v-david-vandergriff-et-al-respondents-111649","caseName":"Gregory Hill-Bey, Appellant, vs. David Vandergriff, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111649","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gregory Hill-Bey, an incarcerated individual, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his petition alleging Sunshine Law violations against the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correction Center. The circuit court dismissed the petition because Hill-Bey failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by Missouri's Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hill-Bey did not plead or show exhaustion of administrative remedies for his specific Sunshine Law claim, and that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to Sunshine Law claims, which are not constitutional claims.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-hill-bey-appellant-v-david-vandergriff-et-al-respondents-111649","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}