{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"standard-of-review","label":"Standard of Review","description":null,"totalCases":1953,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2014,"count":1},{"year":2018,"count":159},{"year":2019,"count":230},{"year":2020,"count":260},{"year":2021,"count":227},{"year":2022,"count":187},{"year":2023,"count":240},{"year":2024,"count":296},{"year":2025,"count":301},{"year":2026,"count":52}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113602:2026-02-24","opinionId":"42131c82-98bc-58fc-8c38-ad998c0cdaad","slug":"kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","caseName":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED113602","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart appealed the dismissal of her claims against Washington University for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding Torre-Stewart failed to plead facts demonstrating a legal disability or sufficient harassment. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, concluding that Torre-Stewart adequately pleaded facts to establish its elements, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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:sc101121:2026-02-24","opinionId":"1179f428-c8b5-526a-9ec3-046c64e80091","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","caseName":"In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101121","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights for minor children A.L.P. and S.H.P. after Lora Martinez, the children's adoptive parent, was granted parental rights in a separate adoption proceeding. The circuit court granted Smith visitation, and Martinez appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 452.375.5(5)(a) does not create an independent cause of action for third-party custody or visitation when custody is not already at issue in an underlying proceeding, such as a divorce or paternity action. Consequently, Smith's claim for visitation and her subsequent family access motion failed.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87485:2026-02-24","opinionId":"53f50252-917c-5803-bde2-1ddc31e44d0a","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","caseName":"In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble\nvs. \nBradford R. Noble","caseNumber":"WD87485","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Stacey L. Noble appealed the trial court's amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Bradford R. Noble, challenging the denial of maintenance and an alleged judicial impropriety. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found no judicial impropriety in the trial court's use of an online calculator for judicially noticeable tax rates. The court also affirmed the denial of maintenance, concluding that Husband lacked the ability to pay regardless of the income calculation method, and that maintenance is not mandatory if the paying spouse cannot afford it.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113172:2026-02-17","opinionId":"ca60c553-a3e7-54bd-8b3f-141be5118385","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113172","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Elizabeth M. Speer appealed her convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and did not obtain a written waiver of counsel. The State conceded error on both points. The appellate court reversed Speer's convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment and Section 600.051.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231038","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113141:2026-02-10","opinionId":"63188eef-feae-5cf6-bb09-a1f9fba94b76","slug":"mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","caseName":"M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant M.D.M. (Father) appealed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, raising six points of error concerning the Form 14 income calculation, Line 11 credit, allocation of guardian ad litem and attorney's fees, and the abatement of child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that Father's failure to preserve issues for appeal subjected all points to plain error review. The court found no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the circuit court's rulings, including its denial of a Line 11 credit due to Father's non-exercise of visitation and its fee awards.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38798:2026-02-03","opinionId":"61e9a65d-bab3-54ea-8990-671bdf26d4a8","slug":"carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","caseName":"CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38798","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101152:2026-02-03","opinionId":"4993f108-9a01-5508-9b69-5087bb46d5b4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Keith Eggleston, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101152","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed methamphetamine found in a vehicle he was driving. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not require \"additional incriminating evidence\" to establish possession in shared spaces, thereby rejecting prior case law. The Court found sufficient evidence that Eggleston was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and acted knowingly, supported by circumstantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101308:2026-01-23","opinionId":"3e87fbd8-6c3b-5141-ac25-289beec22fdf","slug":"sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","caseName":"Sean Soendker Nicholson, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC101308","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Sean Soendker Nicholson sued the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 22, alleging violations of the original purpose, single subject, and clear title provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court found SB 22 constitutional regarding these procedural limitations but unconstitutional on equal protection grounds for one section, which it severed. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement because an amendment granting the attorney general new appeal powers was not germane to the bill's original purpose concerning ballot summaries. The Court further found the offending provision could not be severed, thus invalidating SB 22 in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sean-soendker-nicholson-appellantcross-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-et-101308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101161:2026-01-23","opinionId":"5107f9d3-2209-58ac-b6f6-75130aa84c76","slug":"colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","caseName":"Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101161","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Colleen Eikmeier and William Love, homeowners in a subdivision, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners' association (HOA) after the legislature enacted a statute proscribing covenants from limiting solar panel installation. The circuit court denied relief, finding the statute could not apply to preexisting covenants. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies to all covenants, including those in existence before its effective date, and that this application does not violate the state constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws or impairment of contracts. The Court also found the HOA's rule prohibiting street-facing solar panels unenforceable as it adversely affected the cost or efficiency of the solar device.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230207","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112791:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2844b7d2-d205-5b01-b723-faea0d5c391b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112791","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100874:2026-01-13","opinionId":"256384ec-b1e1-5cf5-b792-4e5a34a6cf1f","slug":"craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","caseName":"Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100874","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229859","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101157:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0337ba9b-2357-5e36-a3d9-78eb4c402946","slug":"in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","caseName":"In re:  Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101157","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101132:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2cc3eae6-13d6-5765-9da3-8c9144b3cbba","slug":"state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","caseName":"State ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, vs. The Honorable Craig Hellmann, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101132","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court dismissed a felony DWI charge against Richard James Johnson, who was charged as a persistent offender. The circuit court found the persistent offender statute, section 577.023.2, facially unconstitutional for violating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by requiring a judge, not a jury, to find predicate facts for sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the statute is not facially unconstitutional because existing procedural rules, such as Rule 27.02(s) and MAI-CR 4th 405.01, provide a mechanism for a jury to make the necessary findings. Therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the charge.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229862","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113257:2026-01-13","opinionId":"54f308ed-bb84-5c41-b22f-2389f0293b73","slug":"harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","caseName":"Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113257","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113160:2026-01-06","opinionId":"d1349662-a11d-505d-8895-714e94b61f5d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Robinson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113160","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-06","year":2026,"display_summary":"Dustin Robinson appealed his conviction for felony resisting arrest, arguing that resisting arrest on an outstanding felony warrant should be classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, under section 575.150.5(1) RSMo. Robinson contended that only warrantless arrests for a felony, or arrests on warrants for failure to appear or probation violations in felony cases, could support a felony resisting arrest charge. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that an arrest made pursuant to a warrant for a felony offense is still considered an arrest \"for a felony\" under the statute, regardless of whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113150:2025-12-30","opinionId":"a22c9abc-e1e5-59d3-b995-3fab89f37e3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113150","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101104:2025-12-29","opinionId":"25d92d9f-5bb6-59eb-9ab7-b082f2ebb7a0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isis S. Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101104","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Isis S. Jones was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial. On appeal, Jones argued the circuit court plainly erred by accepting a jury verdict based on an instruction that varied from the charged offense, leading to an improper sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Jones failed to establish that the alleged error was \"facially evident, obvious, and clear,\" as shooting \"into\" a vehicle necessarily subsumes shooting \"at\" it.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo: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":"mo:sc101071:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d2463849-d8a6-5968-94f1-7a1562f12608","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard Neil Burkett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101071","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Neil Burkett was convicted of first-degree assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Burkett contended the circuit court erred by not submitting a self-defense instruction and by not giving a curative instruction regarding the State's closing argument. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to review Burkett's unpreserved claims for plain error because he caused or contributed to the alleged errors and his claims were ill-suited for plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101178:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d3a2f1f8-f64a-5f69-8e10-c93e36771de2","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101178","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112275:2025-12-23","opinionId":"c9202e6b-6d0f-55f7-a21d-8caa8ab2e623","slug":"demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","caseName":"Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112275","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Demetrius L. Davis appealed the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The State argued the motion court erred in reviewing Davis's untimely amended motion after finding he was abandoned by unappointed post-conviction counsel. The appellate court agreed, holding that the abandonment doctrine applies only to appointed counsel, not counsel who voluntarily entered an appearance. Therefore, the motion court lacked authority to review the untimely amended motion and should have only reviewed the timely filed pro se motion. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment, and the case was remanded for adjudication of the pro se claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112762:2025-12-16","opinionId":"c92b5cc2-c426-5520-b878-4f2e407256c4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112762","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87887:2025-12-16","opinionId":"09fd7f9b-a2be-5246-b8a4-7480de898839","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.H., K.H., T.H., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nJ.M.S.","caseNumber":"WD87887","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother J.M.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her three children, J.M.H., K.M.H., and T.M.H., by the Jackson County Circuit Court. The trial court based its decision on findings of abuse and neglect, and parental unfitness, concluding termination was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Mother committed severe and recurrent physical abuse, and that termination was in the children's best interest.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228558","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"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":"moappwd:parent-228554","opinionId":"8c9979e1-e1a5-54e6-9904-c02f6476754c","slug":"mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","caseName":"Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin\nvs.\nCity of Kearney, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin sued the City of Kearney for inverse condemnation, alleging soil erosion in their backyards due to the City's stormwater drainage system. The circuit court granted a directed verdict against Laughlin, finding no notice to the City of erosion on his property, but a jury found for the Davises and Kamms. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that Laughlin failed to prove notice, and that the Davises and Kamms properly sought damages for a partial taking, not a total taking, which was supported by the evidence. The court also affirmed its appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments regarding judgment finality and timely appeal.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113332:2025-12-16","opinionId":"6f1fe533-be87-5313-8219-e26b84d52c66","slug":"sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","caseName":"S.C., Respondent, vs. Gabe Gore, City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Chief Robert J. Tracy, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chief of Police, Defendants, Colonel Michael Turner, Superintendent Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113332","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.C., who had previously pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor in Indiana, registered with Missouri's sex offender registry after moving to the state. He later filed a petition seeking a declaration of exemption from the registry and an order for removal of his name. The trial court granted his petition, finding him exempt and ordering removal. The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol appealed, arguing S.C. was not exempt and that removal was beyond the court's statutory authority. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that S.C.'s Indiana crimes did not meet Missouri's child abuse criteria for mandatory registration, and that an exempt person could have their name removed from the registry.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sc-respondent-v-gabe-gore-city-of-st-louis-circuit-attorney-chief-robert-113332","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113445:2025-12-09","opinionId":"9b461770-6889-5529-ac52-e5b05b65f663","slug":"collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","caseName":"Collector of Revenue, et al., Respondents, v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, Defendant, Roland Hill, Jr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113445","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Roland Hill, Jr. appealed the trial court's judgment confirming a sheriff's sale of a property due to delinquent tax liens. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Hill's notice of appeal was untimely filed beyond the twenty-day statutory deadline set by section 92.845. The court held that this statutory timeframe controls over the general forty-day period in the Rules of Civil Procedure and that it lacked authority to grant leave for a late appeal as the six-month window had expired.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228380","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113152:2025-12-09","opinionId":"d092a53b-584d-50a5-959e-ec010888ed53","slug":"in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","caseName":"In the interest of:  W.M.H.","caseNumber":"ED113152","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"W.M.H. appealed the juvenile court's judgment committing him to the Division of Youth Services after he was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree tampering and possession of a controlled substance. W.M.H. argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he purposely or knowingly rode unlawfully in another's automobile. The appellate court reversed the adjudication for second-degree tampering, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite mental state, but affirmed the judgment otherwise.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112921:2025-12-09","opinionId":"32d73aa0-fa8c-5b56-afba-55f4636e3939","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Preston Gremminger, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112921","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87315:2025-12-02","opinionId":"df04912a-d16b-5bc7-b549-3c5d5ef3d61b","slug":"randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","caseName":"Randa M. Techtow\nvs.\nJesse T. Techtow","caseNumber":"WD87315","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112852:2025-12-02","opinionId":"d8b3ac30-ce1e-5d04-ba28-500b212e2638","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112852","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-227975","opinionId":"b4f00716-49f9-5e3d-bd4e-2ef9de80d3be","slug":"city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","caseName":"City of Jefferson, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Sprint Communications, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113433","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Jefferson, Missouri, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its claims against various telecommunication companies for delinquent business license taxes, violations of section 392.350, declaratory judgment, and accounting. The City argued the circuit court erred in interpreting the \"limitation for bringing suit\" in section 71.625.2, dismissing its section 392.350 and declaratory judgment claims as derivative or having an adequate legal remedy, and dismissing its accounting claims. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgments, holding that the City failed to comply with statutory assessment and notice requirements for tax collection, lacked standing under section 392.350, and had adequate remedies at law for its declaratory judgment and accounting claims.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-jefferson-missouri-appellant-v-sprint-communications-inc-et-al-re-113433","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113533:2025-11-25","opinionId":"4409f861-84c3-5f80-891f-646b63586587","slug":"charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","caseName":"Charles Lane, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113533","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Charles Lane challenged the validity of a City of St. Louis Charter amendment that created a Charter Commission, arguing it violated Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution by allowing the Commission to bypass the city's lawmaking body in submitting charter amendments to voters. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the City, finding the amendment valid. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Charter Amendment, when read in its entirety, provides that the Charter Commission frames proposals, but the Board of Alderman ultimately submits them to the voters, thereby complying with the Missouri Constitution.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227783","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-lane-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-113533","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87623:2025-11-25","opinionId":"a6fbf8c5-39bc-5052-b22c-d11532a2ba1c","slug":"connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","caseName":"Connie Haworth\nvs.\nGuest Services, Inc., et al.","caseNumber":"WD87623","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Connie Haworth, a former employee, sued Guest Services, Inc., St. Anthony's, LLC, and Mark Ledom for various claims. The Appellants moved to compel arbitration, arguing a binding arbitration agreement existed, but the trial court denied their motions, finding a lack of mutual assent. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the trial court's factual finding that the parties did not mutually assent to the arbitration agreement, and concluding that an adequate evidentiary hearing had been conducted.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112740:2025-11-25","opinionId":"5a3869a8-829e-5e14-ba70-6626baa67b92","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112740","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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":"moappwd:wd87821:2025-11-18","opinionId":"82a8e8fd-986a-5a8a-b15d-593102ec0f28","slug":"in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","caseName":"In the Matter of Edward L. Eisenstein, Deceased \nMargaret Delacy\nvs.\nWorld Wildlife Fund, Missouri Botanical Garden, Cousteau Society, The Nature Conservancy, and Ecohealth Alliance, Inc., Successor-In-Interest to Wildlife Preservation Trust International","caseNumber":"WD87821","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Margaret DeLacy, Decedent's sister and only heir-at-law, was appointed personal representative of Edward L. Eisenstein's intestate estate. Appellants, five organizations named as beneficiaries in a purported will, challenged this appointment and the probate court's finding that the will was untimely presented. The probate court ruled the will was a legal nullity due to late presentation under section 473.050, RSMo, and declined to remove DeLacy. The appellate court affirmed, finding DeLacy's initial application for letters complied with statutory requirements, triggering the six-month limitations period, and that no abuse of discretion occurred in her appointment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87377:2025-11-12","opinionId":"5a507ea8-23e6-57a7-abb8-fc794484cd3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJonathan Edward Rainey","caseNumber":"WD87377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jonathan Rainey appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the protective search of Rainey's person and vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, thus the evidence was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112696:2025-11-12","opinionId":"4cf5a82b-33b5-516f-ab4b-951cf012d31e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danielle Lechocki, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Lechocki appealed her conviction for attempted unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense jury instruction. She contended there was substantial evidence to support such an instruction, including conflicting testimony about who initiated the confrontation and her reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force given her physical condition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for retrial, holding that the evidence required a self-defense instruction and that factual issues regarding the degree of force and its justification were for the jury.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100967:2025-11-04","opinionId":"94298e62-47a0-5106-8990-dd89cddc7d96","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100967","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's order sustaining Amanda Mire's motion to suppress certain statements and evidence in a driving while intoxicated case. The circuit court initially made a docket entry on February 26, 2024, suppressing the evidence, and later entered a more formal \"judgment and order\" on March 11, 2024. The State filed its notice of appeal on March 11, 2024. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the February 26 docket entry was the operative order, and the State failed to file its notice of appeal within the statutory five-day period from that date.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101018:2025-11-04","opinionId":"d6c17f35-ba6a-5544-8fb8-9d622d2e9956","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101018","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed a judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis on his petition to compel the production of traffic stop data under Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks claimed the judgment was against the weight of the evidence because the City allegedly withheld responsive records. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Weeks failed to cite or apply the necessary four-step analytical framework to demonstrate that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The Court also expressly adopted the Houston v. Crider framework for such claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-101018","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113495:2025-10-28","opinionId":"c5c6db70-b9f6-577f-931e-6b4cc150d829","slug":"mary-a-cook-and-the-william-edward-cook-and-mary-ann-cook-trust-responden-113495","caseName":"Mary A. Cook, and the William Edward Cook and Mary Ann Cook Trust, Respondents, v. Glenn Sykes, d/b/a Sykes Hauling and Tree Service, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary A. Cook obtained a default judgment against Glenn Sykes for breach of contract, fraud, and a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violation after Sykes failed to complete tree services. Sykes appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to set aside the default judgment and quash execution, arguing the judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that service of process was proper and the default judgment was not void, thus rendering Sykes's motions time-barred or without merit.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226796","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-a-cook-and-the-william-edward-cook-and-mary-ann-cook-trust-responden-113495","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87231:2025-10-28","opinionId":"11cba625-1bca-5240-bdbe-61ddaa2d6027","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nAshontai Samuel Wallace","caseNumber":"WD87231","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashontai Wallace appealed his convictions for first-degree robbery, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and three counts of armed criminal action, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed all convictions. It found sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti for robbery and that the victims were confined for a \"substantial period\" for the kidnapping charges, rejecting Wallace's \"merely incidental\" argument based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113128:2025-10-21","opinionId":"69413a86-b50a-5a46-9db9-55084ce0c00d","slug":"timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","caseName":"Timothy Perkins, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113128","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Timothy Perkins appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim about alleged habits of stealing and lying in his statutory sodomy trial. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that counsel's choice not to pursue that specific line of questioning was a reasonable strategic decision, especially given the trial court's prior rulings and counsel's alternative methods of challenging credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113156:2025-10-21","opinionId":"ef651190-ea23-5305-8791-b80433a614ee","slug":"mississippi-valley-equipment-company-respondent-v-david-killian-dba-elite-113156","caseName":"Mississippi Valley Equipment Company, Respondent, vs. David Killian, d/b/a Elite Seawall & Excavating, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113156","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Killian appealed a trial court's judgment finding him personally liable for Mississippi Valley Equipment Company's (MVE) breach of contract claim. Killian argued there was insufficient evidence he contracted in his individual capacity, that he assented to two of the three contracts, and that the attorney's fee award was unsupported. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Killian failed to meet his burden to show the judgment was incorrect on all points.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226618","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mississippi-valley-equipment-company-respondent-v-david-killian-dba-elite-113156","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113155:2025-10-21","opinionId":"632f5857-980c-54fa-a985-a3743e8e026e","slug":"cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","caseName":"C.M.L., et al., Appellants, v. S.R.B.-F., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113155","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Paternal grandparents C.L. and N.L. appealed the circuit court's judgment granting sole physical and legal custody of their grandson K.J.L. to his mother, S.R.B.-F. The grandparents argued the circuit court misapplied the law by finding a change in circumstances based on unpled issues and by conflating change of circumstance requirements with best interest factors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court properly determined a substantial change in circumstances occurred due to the grandparents' flagrant pattern of willful denial of the mother's visitation rights.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87809:2025-10-21","opinionId":"25c4476e-3bf7-5dab-8374-06c646ce7dcb","slug":"dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","caseName":"Dana Miller\nvs. \nThe Missouri House of Representatives, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87809","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Dana Miller, a former Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her whistleblower claim against the House. Miller alleged she was retaliated against by Speaker Dean Plocher after reporting concerns about software procurement, campaign finance violations, and abuse of authority. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Miller failed to allege facts showing Plocher was her \"supervisor or appointing authority\" as required by the whistleblower statute, as the Speaker lacks the authority to discipline or remove the Chief Clerk under House rules.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87715:2025-10-14","opinionId":"3f12ea58-056b-5a0f-9822-1f4fd2ce364b","slug":"david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","caseName":"David Woody\nvs. \nPatrick Clark, Jay Bettis, & Richard Riddell","caseNumber":"WD87715","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Woody, an elected County Clerk and member of the Missouri National Guard, sued the County Commission after it limited his salary payment to 120 hours per federal fiscal year during his 400-day active federal military deployment. Woody argued he was entitled to full salary under § 41.942.1, while the Commission relied on § 105.270.1. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Commission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that § 41.942.1 preserves a deployed Guard member's compensation rate and terms (\"pay status\"), but not the right to continued salary payment during extended federal deployment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"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:wd87412:2025-10-07","opinionId":"f08b95a0-4367-5baf-8f68-625a87e95e0b","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: Nathan Goodpasture\nvs.\nSandy Goodpasture","caseNumber":"WD87412","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother, Sandy Goodpasture, appealed the trial court's judgment of modification concerning child custody and support. She raised eight points on appeal, challenging the striking of her pleadings, the handling of domestic violence allegations, child support calculations, interpreter competency, religious beliefs, and the guardian ad litem. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying several of Mother's points due to significant briefing deficiencies and finding no error in the trial court's application of law regarding the striking of pleadings and child support imputation.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225656","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87379:2025-10-07","opinionId":"2a5b41e8-b777-5a53-9007-32247035b8ec","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCody Boehmer","caseNumber":"WD87379","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Boehmer pleaded guilty to property damage and trespass, and the circuit court sentenced him. Later, the court entered a separate order requiring Boehmer to pay restitution. Boehmer appealed, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order after sentencing. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed, vacating the restitution order because the circuit court had exhausted its jurisdiction upon imposing the original sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112788:2025-09-30","opinionId":"598c52c9-874b-5c89-811e-3b7a4f4eb524","slug":"mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","caseName":"Mose L. Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mose Martin appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following his conviction for first-degree assault. Martin claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a lay witness to impeach the victim's credibility and for failing to call an expert witness to testify about memory impairment caused by crack cocaine use. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that trial counsel's actions were reasonable and that Martin failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113338:2025-09-30","opinionId":"f46fda95-29b8-5c8c-a3fc-4927f49219e5","slug":"david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","caseName":"David Kell, Respondent, vs. Walker Recycling Company, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113338","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Kell filed a petition in the circuit court seeking to correct a clerical error in a workers' compensation settlement agreement with Walker Recycling Company, LLC, and to have the court enter judgment on the corrected settlement. The circuit court granted Kell's petition, correcting the employer's name and entering judgment for Kell. Walker Recycling appealed, arguing the judgment lacked substantial evidence, that Kell was not its employee, and that the court lacked authority to modify the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225357","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38242:2025-09-25","opinionId":"1468450f-6b40-5dd6-896a-36ce7a8dee8d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38242","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Orlando Moore appealed his convictions for second-degree domestic assault and first-degree property damage following a bench trial. Moore challenged the admission of the victim's statements to police under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception and raised a Sixth Amendment confrontation-clause claim. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the victim's statements because Moore's manipulative actions caused her unavailability, and declined plain error review of the unpreserved confrontation-clause claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38916:2025-09-24","opinionId":"a5ffa1f2-dd41-51d9-9b74-c199de26b9a0","slug":"robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","caseName":"ROBERT BYERS, Appellant\nv.\nNEW PRIME, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38916","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Byers, a truck driver, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, contending that the evidence overwhelmingly proved he was permanently and totally disabled (PTD). The Commission had found Byers not credible based on surveillance video and rejected his experts' opinions, instead relying on the employer's medical expert. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, holding that it was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the court would not substitute its judgment on witness credibility or the weight of competing medical opinions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112755:2025-09-23","opinionId":"97f418e2-82ce-5ac8-b0c2-39cdc866a3be","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112866:2025-09-23","opinionId":"70c302a5-4646-50a4-8600-ad2a3c3cc4ef","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112866","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janaya Neither appealed her conviction for assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting social media posts without an adequate foundation, which she claimed resulted in prejudice. The State charged Appellant with assault and armed criminal action for slashing T.G. with a knife, while Appellant claimed self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social media posts, as there was sufficient evidence of their authenticity. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was an error in admission, Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice warranting reversal.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112914:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c93e72ae-0625-5697-bd72-6bd2b0558c31","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kevin P. Coplin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112914","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin P. Coplin was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of child molestation first degree. On appeal, Coplin argued the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his request for a mistrial after the State asked a question on re-direct examination that he claimed improperly implied a prior bad act. The Eastern District affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had \"opened the door\" to the line of questioning, the question was unanswered, and any potential prejudice was negated by jury instructions and the jury's mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38593:2025-09-22","opinionId":"a59aeaf0-b1cf-568f-b51b-9355cab2447a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38593","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Sales, Jr., a prior and persistent felony drug offender, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, following a jury trial where he represented himself. Sales challenged the probable cause for a search warrant, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding chain of custody and drug paraphernalia, and claimed he was denied his right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of his claims, including that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112950:2025-09-16","opinionId":"da4f7870-a48e-5e83-8822-d4202456fdee","slug":"in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","caseName":"In the interest of:  C.B., Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112950","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"C.B. appealed the juvenile court's judgment dismissing juvenile proceedings and transferring him for adult criminal prosecution, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during the certification proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court clarified that the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington is the appropriate framework for analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in juvenile certification proceedings, and found that C.B.'s counsel was not ineffective and C.B. was not prejudiced.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113612:2025-09-16","opinionId":"bc325d40-eaca-544c-afbc-6efb019b2a2a","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Michael Joe Butler, Relator, v. Honorable Joseph Rathert, Circuit Judge, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113612","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Relator Michael Butler filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the Honorable Joseph Rathert from revoking his probation. The circuit court found Butler in violation of probation based on a Notice of Citation and a probation officer's testimony, despite the underlying criminal charge being dismissed and a lack of first-hand evidence or prior disclosure. The appellate court made its preliminary order of prohibition permanent, concluding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Butler his rights to due process and confrontation during the probation revocation hearing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224920","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38581:2025-09-09","opinionId":"72ae2e90-279e-57a1-8849-265e9b4c1974","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEPARIS D. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38581","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deparis Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, resisting arrest, and armed criminal action following a jury trial. On appeal, Townsend challenged the admission of a Facebook video and the trial court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial after testimony about his invocation of the right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the handling of the invocation of counsel. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of a life sentence without parole for the murder conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87250:2025-09-09","opinionId":"0d27cb6c-560b-5d0d-b2d4-4deca0918f19","slug":"anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","caseName":"Anthony E. Barron\nvs.\nMartha Parker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Catherine L. Brizendine (Deceased)","caseNumber":"WD87250","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony E. Barron sought specific performance of a contract to purchase Catherine Brizendine's farm. Brizendine's daughter, Martha Parker, acting as her representative, appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that Brizendine lacked contractual capacity and was unduly influenced, and that the trial court erred in denying a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support Brizendine's capacity, no undue influence, and that a bench trial was appropriate for the equitable claim of specific performance.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112801:2025-09-09","opinionId":"62dcceec-1be4-5b07-b3f5-231d09e949b7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ledra Craig, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112801","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ledra Craig appealed his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, following a jury trial. Craig argued the trial court erred by not removing a juror who recognized a witness and potentially saw him in shackles, and by not sua sponte intervening during the prosecutor's closing argument. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in retaining the juror and no plain error in the prosecutor's remarks.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112942:2025-09-09","opinionId":"d38e2f22-ffac-52f9-a60c-8e67129984a0","slug":"christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","caseName":"Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Russell appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and for not objecting to prejudicial body camera audio. The motion court denied his claims after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding trial counsel's reasonable strategy and lack of prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38761:2025-09-04","opinionId":"68bfeac9-49e1-507f-b0f4-5ac64ee7da65","slug":"thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","caseName":"THOMAS BENZEN, et al., Respondents\nvs.\nJEFFREY B. WHEELER, et al., Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38761","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"A group of neighbors, including the Benzens and Schniedermeyers (Plaintiffs) and the Wheelers (Defendants), sued each other over various property disputes. The Wheelers appealed the circuit court's judgment granting Plaintiffs an easement by implication across a portion of the Wheelers' property. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, as modified, denying all three of the Wheelers' points on appeal regarding pleading, sufficiency of evidence for reasonable necessity, and the adequacy of the easement's legal description. The modification corrected the judgment to reference the correct count number for the implied easement.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113002:2025-09-02","opinionId":"27b9b297-2384-5ab9-adad-7e5ee12563c1","slug":"colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","caseName":"Colin Rumpsa, Appellant, vs. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113002","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Colin Rumpsa, a former deputy, sued the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and others, alleging violations of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) during his termination process. The circuit court dismissed his petition, finding his claims were barred by the LEOBOR's one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the limitations period begins when the violation itself is ascertainable, not when the resulting damage or final employment action is sustained.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113098:2025-09-02","opinionId":"5fad49f7-3d71-5b6f-b419-52f976060e73","slug":"alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","caseName":"Alana Hauck, Respondent, vs. The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113098","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Alana Hauck sought service-connected disability retirement benefits from The Police Retirement System of St. Louis (PRS), which denied her application. The circuit court reversed PRS's decision, and PRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that PRS erred by improperly applying alleged symptom magnification to the exclusivity requirement for benefits. The case was remanded to PRS for reconsideration of whether Hauck's incapacitation was the exclusive result of her work accident, and Hauck's motion for attorney's fees was denied.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","workers-compensation","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38589:2025-08-29","opinionId":"620053de-4a19-54f4-8c5c-ec4f6bf7309a","slug":"christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","caseName":"CHRISTINA N. KNAPP, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38589","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christina N. Knapp appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming her plea counsel coerced her into pleading guilty, rendering her plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The motion court denied relief, finding plea counsel's testimony credible and that Knapp's plea was voluntary. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err because the plea hearing record and counsel's testimony refuted Knapp's claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38530:2025-08-29","opinionId":"a733c383-c981-5635-9cf4-cae16343912f","slug":"howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","caseName":"HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38530","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed an \"Amended Order and Judgment\" from the motion court, which granted Howard Roberts' Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, vacated his conviction and sentence, ordered a new trial, and directed his immediate release. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the Amended Order was not a final judgment because it failed to adjudicate all of Roberts' viable claims. Additionally, the court vacated the portion of the order releasing Roberts, holding that Rule 30.17 mandates a defendant remain in custody during the State's appeal of a post-conviction relief order.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/howard-roberts-movant-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-appellant-d38530","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":42,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38188:2025-08-29","opinionId":"d746e18d-82a5-5cfa-a664-ae559f5ed0fb","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38188","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Cooper appealed his conviction for armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by submitting a jury instruction on armed criminal action with involuntary manslaughter as the underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cooper failed to preserve the instructional error for review by not making a specific objection at trial or in his motion for new trial. The court declined to exercise plain error review, and further noted that even if reviewed, the argument would fail on the merits due to controlling Supreme Court of Missouri precedent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113320:2025-08-26","opinionId":"fd96804d-c201-5ab9-a034-338de862fdc0","slug":"temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","caseName":"Temujin Kensu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, vs. Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., d/b/a Access Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113320","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Temujin Kensu filed a class action against Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., alleging breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to a digital music service for prisoners. The trial court granted class certification for these claims, but Keefe Commissary appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification but reversed and remanded the case due to an improperly defined class that included a determination of the merits.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223937","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/temujin-kensu-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-113320","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd: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":"moappsd:sd38672:2025-08-25","opinionId":"cf75e8ce-2fdd-5936-9788-81a919d9c423","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-melvin-anderson-relator-v-honorable-mark-preyer-d38672","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. \nMELVIN ANDERSON, Relator\nv.\nHONORABLE MARK PREYER, Respondent\nand\nSTATE OF MISSOURI EX REL.\nATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREW BAILEY, Relator\nv. \nHONORABLE MARK PREYER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38672","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Relator Melvin Anderson and the Missouri Attorney General filed competing writ petitions after a successor judge, following the death of the original trial judge, accepted conflicting jury verdicts, discharged the jury, and then ordered a new trial. The appellate court made the preliminary writs of prohibition permanent, vacating the trial court's new-trial orders. The court held that the successor judge lacked authority to grant a new trial under Rule 29.11 due to untimeliness, but could potentially do so under Rule 32.15 if he determined he could not perform the necessary duties. The court also clarified double jeopardy implications for unequivocal acquittals, unequivocal guilty verdicts, and inconsistent verdicts, directing the trial court to conduct a Rule 32.15 analysis.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-melvin-anderson-relator-v-honorable-mark-preyer-d38672","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38062:2025-08-20","opinionId":"466b9c03-6ac8-51f4-851f-20fe035f9185","slug":"martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","caseName":"MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38062","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Martin Priest appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which sought to set aside his 1984 first-degree murder conviction based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Priest argued his counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and exclude tainted identification evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding its decision was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","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:ed112980:2025-08-19","opinionId":"c9d7c27f-3248-5f9e-a522-b373224367ec","slug":"cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","caseName":"Cassandra Murphy, Appellant, vs. Intensiva Hospital of Greater St. Louis, Inc., D/B/A Select Specialty Hospital, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112980","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cassandra Murphy appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing her lawsuit for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act for failure to prosecute. The circuit court had dismissed her case with prejudice after a period of perceived inactivity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion because Murphy's counsel had taken sufficient actions, including moving to remove the case from the dismissal docket, engaging in preliminary settlement negotiations, and attempting to schedule a deposition, to prevent a finding of substantial delay. The case was remanded with specific instructions to reinstate Murphy's case.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113028:2025-08-19","opinionId":"d6381652-98fb-50e8-9462-665ee3b15077","slug":"body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","caseName":"Body Treats Etc., LLC, Respondent, vs. Matt Tarrillion, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113028","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Matt Tarrillion appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Body Treats Etc., LLC, in an unlawful detainer action. Body Treats claimed Tarrillion was a month-to-month sublessee, while Tarrillion argued he was a co-tenant under a written lease. The appellate court denied Body Treats' motion to dismiss for mootness and reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the written lease clearly established Tarrillion as a co-tenant with equal rights to possession, making the unlawful detainer judgment against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38558:2025-08-12","opinionId":"4f6011d5-154b-5901-b683-a5d1d78f1866","slug":"donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","caseName":"DONALD WAYNE McMANNIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38558","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Donald McMannis appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), which was enhanced to a class B felony due to his habitual offender status. McMannis argued his sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove his habitual offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for habitual offender status is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the claim was abandoned due to lack of evidence, and the *Nowicki* opinion on prior DWI convictions does not apply retroactively.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-222933","opinionId":"5e424bb6-760f-5b83-b138-41b97347e3d5","slug":"louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","caseName":"Louis Jones, et al. \nvs. \nMissouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87295","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-05","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claimants, recipients of Tort Victims Compensation Fund awards, sued the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the Division of Workers' Compensation after the Division paid only 40% of their approved claims, contending the payment calculation was erroneous. The circuit court denied relief, finding the suits barred by sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively, that the calculation was proper. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's conclusions on sovereign immunity and administrative exhaustion but affirmed the judgment that the Division's payment calculation was lawful.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/louis-jones-et-al-v-missouri-labor-and-industrial-relations-commission-et-d87295","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38494:2025-08-01","opinionId":"1ccd8ab1-7bb1-5390-8118-5fa3f426774b","slug":"julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","caseName":"JULIA ANN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nARTHUR HAWES, M.D. and FERRELL-DUNCAN CLINIC, INC., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38494","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Julia Ann Richardson sued Dr. Arthur Hawes and Ferrell-Duncan Clinic, Inc. for medical negligence related to cosmetic surgeries. A jury found in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Richardson contended the trial court erred by admitting certain demonstrative exhibits during the defendants' expert testimony, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay and were not properly authenticated. The Southern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the admission of the exhibits and concluding that Richardson failed to preserve one argument and did not demonstrate prejudice for the other.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","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:wd86932:2025-07-29","opinionId":"4049704e-2913-5b58-a496-28faec9390f1","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nMichael W. Myers","caseNumber":"WD86932","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael W. Myers appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action, challenging a jury instruction variance and a discrepancy between his oral and written sentences. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instruction regarding transferred intent, as Myers was on notice of this theory and failed to show prejudice. However, the court reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc amendment to correct the written judgment, which incorrectly stated that certain sentences were to run consecutively when the oral pronouncement was silent, meaning they should run concurrently.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86606:2025-07-29","opinionId":"dc5cabf9-5466-578b-a0a6-f9899dde82ae","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nNancy Russell","caseNumber":"WD86606","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Nancy Russell appealed her convictions and sentences for four counts of first-degree domestic assault and four counts of armed criminal action. Russell contended the circuit court plainly erred by allowing a treating physician to offer particularized testimony that improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the doctor's testimony, which focused on the developmental ability of a nine-year-old to fabricate a plausible mechanism for injuries, did not improperly vouch for the victim's credibility.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","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"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113033:2025-07-29","opinionId":"b9b94239-593a-591a-8a5a-901d97d7d731","slug":"jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","caseName":"J.N., a Minor, by and through his Next Friend, Colleen Nentwig and Colleen Nentwig, Individually, Appellants, and Ryne Dobson, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Dale Anderson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113033","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"J.N. and Colleen Nentwig sued Dr. Dale Anderson for wrongful death, alleging medical negligence after Ryne Dobson killed his stepfather, Kevin Nentwig. Appellants claimed Dr. Anderson failed to warn of Dobson's danger or negligently prescribed medication. On appeal, Appellants argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a novel theory of duty for psychiatrists to third parties regarding medication-induced harm. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Dr. Anderson, declining to recognize this new duty because Dobson's violent conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112815:2025-07-29","opinionId":"d6eba03d-dc6b-512c-85a3-0dc67460e698","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Narvel S. Harmon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112815","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Narvel Harmon appealed his conviction for first-degree harassment, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a \"trigger-like\" gesture he made during his preliminary hearing. He contended the gesture was speculative as a threat and more prejudicial than probative. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the gesture was admissible as a threat toward the victims, demonstrating consciousness of guilt, and thus the circuit court did not err.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","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:ed112879:2025-07-29","opinionId":"148728e1-60c7-5e01-a6bf-60d53e2077ef","slug":"justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","caseName":"Justin Bonds, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112879","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Justin Bonds appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a material witness, C.T., at his rape trial. Bonds claimed C.T.'s testimony would have provided a viable defense and led to his acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that counsel's decision not to call C.T. was reasonable trial strategy and Bonds failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","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:sd38346:2025-07-25","opinionId":"b71d769b-1bb1-538a-bd25-46834126afe6","slug":"kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","caseName":"KENNETH M. SAUTER, JR., Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38346","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kenneth Sauter appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court determined that Sauter's amended motion was untimely due to appointed counsel's error in applying the wrong version of the rules, constituting abandonment. However, following recent precedent, the court proceeded to review the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding no clear error in its conclusion that sentencing counsel was not ineffective for failing to call two mitigation witnesses, as their testimony would not have added material information beyond the sentencing assessment report.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","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:sd38856:2025-07-23","opinionId":"86a9d94e-3a45-54a3-be1d-895535e1cfb6","slug":"bryce-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38856","caseName":"BRYCE DAVIS, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38856","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bryce Davis appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his plea counsel failed to timely file a motion to change venue, which he believed rendered his guilty plea involuntary. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding that Movant was aware of the untimeliness of the venue motion prior to his plea. Therefore, his attestations of satisfaction with counsel during the plea hearing were either genuine or a knowing misrepresentation, and the motion court did not clearly err in concluding his plea was voluntary.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryce-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38856","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: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: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":"moappd:ed112798:2025-07-22","opinionId":"2620fb1b-1a8a-56df-aa95-2ab453571746","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Devin Griffin-Curry, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112798","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Devin Griffin-Curry appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, stemming from the fatal shooting of his neighbor. He argued violations of his speedy trial right, erroneous exclusion of diminished capacity testimony regarding ADHD, and improper acquittal-first closing arguments by the State. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no speedy trial violation due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice, no abuse of discretion in excluding the ADHD testimony as it did not negate the required mental state, and that the improper closing argument was not prejudicial given the proper jury instructions and strong evidence of guilt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","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:sc100898:2025-07-22","opinionId":"5ce2fd97-3809-5985-adb5-ae7abbe9c25d","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100898","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one \"local government\" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of \"local government\" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222378","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-100898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38886:2025-07-16","opinionId":"dd22d7e2-7762-55aa-a842-129ccac296f1","slug":"in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","caseName":"In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased.","caseNumber":"SD38886","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Jones, surviving spouse of Quentin Lee Jones, appealed the Probate Court's approval of a final settlement for Decedent's estate. She argued the court erred by approving the settlement while objections and a Petition for Discovery of Assets remained unresolved. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. It held that the Probate Court lacked authority to approve the final settlement without a hearing on the objections and without resolving the pending discovery of assets petition, as required by statute.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113127:2025-07-15","opinionId":"21754b24-5fdb-5058-8f8e-93205a55853d","slug":"robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","caseName":"Robert Wayne, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Washington University d/b/a Washington University, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113127","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Wayne, a former police officer for Washington University, appealed the dismissal of his petition alleging the University violated his rights under Missouri's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), section 590.502 RSMo. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the LEOBOR does not apply to private universities. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plain language of the LEOBOR limits its application to public entities, and that Wayne's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222198","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112269:2025-07-15","opinionId":"785d9bb5-feef-564c-b39c-c4c4bed6779a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Leroy M. Holloway, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112269","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leroy Holloway appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial. Holloway contended the State violated an order in limine during closing arguments by linking his firearm possession to an uncharged shooting incident. The appellate court found the State's argument improper but affirmed the conviction, concluding that the overwhelming evidence of Holloway's guilt overcame any prejudice from the improper argument.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","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:ed112738:2025-07-15","opinionId":"da1387ab-6436-5064-abee-4f6adb89aae9","slug":"matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","caseName":"Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary D. Weiss (Wife) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a consent judgment of dissolution of marriage to Matthew J. Weiss (Husband). Wife argued the judgment was not entered into freely and voluntarily due to duress, and challenged the appointment of a Special Master, the timing of the judgment, and the award of attorneys' fees to Husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Wife's motions and concluding that some of her points on appeal were moot or not properly before the court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222196","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38252:2025-07-14","opinionId":"6128d365-ec63-571b-8f1f-3c5c98d559a7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBOBBY GENARO FOREMAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38252","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bobby Genaro Foreman, Jr. appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court plainly erred by failing to include cross-references to self-defense and defense-of-others jury instructions in the verdict directors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It concluded that, despite the instructional error, Foreman failed to demonstrate that the omission resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, especially since the jury was generally instructed on the defenses and counsel argued them.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd: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":"moappwd:wd87676:2025-07-08","opinionId":"30cb0433-291d-5c8f-853c-8e43a96c27eb","slug":"vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","caseName":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC\nvs.\nDavid Benham and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD87676","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award David Benham unemployment benefits. Benham was discharged for allegedly conducting an unauthorized investigation and gossiping about a coworker's nude photograph. The Commission found that Vendtech did not meet its burden to prove misconduct, crediting Benham's testimony that he was merely verifying information before reporting it to supervisors and that his job duties were unclear. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it supported by competent and substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221961","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112413:2025-07-08","opinionId":"b959acb6-796e-51c7-a9d8-32542f288d20","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher L. Bolden, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112413","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Bolden appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and other charges, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on defense of others. Bolden claimed he shot the victim because the victim was choking his ex-girlfriend, but later recanted this story. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed, declining to conduct plain error review because Bolden recanted the only evidence supporting a defense-of-others instruction. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","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"}]}]}