{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"summary-judgment","label":"Summary Judgment","description":null,"totalCases":460,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":45},{"year":2019,"count":53},{"year":2020,"count":58},{"year":2021,"count":63},{"year":2022,"count":49},{"year":2023,"count":53},{"year":2024,"count":71},{"year":2025,"count":63},{"year":2026,"count":5}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38930:2026-03-12","opinionId":"b24b5946-b852-57a0-bf07-7965aa7af496","slug":"paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","caseName":"PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents\nv.\nWAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38930","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101091:2026-02-24","opinionId":"205e275f-5c24-5dfd-b38f-6c1079796a88","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101091","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38943:2026-01-12","opinionId":"86c3bbfe-b6a8-5c30-96cb-abc609e0ae93","slug":"kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","caseName":"K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38943","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellants K.A.C. and Michael Crites, Jr. sued the Missouri State Highway Patrol for wrongful death after a pursued driver collided with and killed Connor Crites. The trial court granted summary judgment for MSHP, finding Appellants failed to establish proximate cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not produce sufficient facts to prove MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, consistent with Supreme Court precedent that proximate cause cannot be based on speculation in police pursuit cases.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","governmental-immunity","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113270:2025-12-23","opinionId":"b406b9d9-152b-50a7-a051-75ed7c87c014","slug":"karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","caseName":"Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113270","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Karla Allsberry, a former circuit clerk, sued Judge Patrick Flynn and his secretary Kathy Hall for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Circuit Court of Lincoln County (CCLC) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment on defamation, directed verdicts on the MHRA claims, and a jury verdict for Flynn on IIED. The appellate court affirmed all judgments, finding no evidence of actual malice for defamation, that the State of Missouri (not CCLC) was Allsberry's employer for MHRA purposes, and that the jury instruction on IIED's \"sole purpose\" element was a correct statement of law. It also found Allsberry's claims of trial error regarding attorney misconduct were not preserved.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229238","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112983:2025-12-09","opinionId":"95ea2f52-be7b-5264-b277-aa14672bf105","slug":"michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","caseName":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr., Appellant, vs. Spencer Fane, LLP, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr. sued Spencer Fane LLP, alleging legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent nondisclosure related to his investment in a car dealership. Shanahan claimed Spencer Fane misrepresented his GM approval status and failed to disclose his lack of approval. The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer Fane on all claims, which Shanahan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Shanahan failed to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship, an affirmative misrepresentation, or a duty to speak.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87919:2025-11-25","opinionId":"33e84e13-8229-50f7-802e-1f666232ad10","slug":"tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","caseName":"Tina Hursman\nvs. \nThe City of Sedalia, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87919","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tina Hursman sued the City of Sedalia for injuries sustained after falling on a city sidewalk. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the sidewalk was not a dangerous condition and was open and obvious. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition, whether it was open and obvious, and whether the step caused Hursman's fall or the City had notice of the condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227758","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87587:2025-10-21","opinionId":"6191194c-5f71-5b8a-85c7-75e55878a75a","slug":"clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","caseName":"Clay Chastain\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87587","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Clay Chastain appealed pro se from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and its officials, in a case alleging malicious arrest, malicious prosecution, and election interference. The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The dismissal was based on Chastain's brief substantially failing to comply with numerous mandatory provisions of Rule 84.04, despite having been warned of deficiencies in an earlier filing.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clay-chastain-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87587","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113308:2025-10-14","opinionId":"ae53694f-4c8f-559a-bd24-abc2af661729","slug":"city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","caseName":"City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, Appellant, vs. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113308","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of Creve Coeur appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, LLC, and other streaming service providers. Creve Coeur sought Video Service Provider (VSP) fees, arguing the providers fell under the Video Service Provider Act (VSPA) and were unjustly enriched. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a 2024 amendment to VSPA clarified its original meaning, excluding streaming content, thus no VSP fees were owed and no constitutional violation occurred, nor was there a basis for unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-creve-coeur-missouri-appellant-v-directv-llc-et-al-respondents-113308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113056:2025-10-07","opinionId":"34f7efec-60b8-5aa7-89d5-2ef2aec5a5e4","slug":"bank-of-washington-appellant-v-land-clearance-for-redevelopment-authority-113056","caseName":"Bank of Washington, Appellant, vs. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis, and LCRA Holdings Corporation, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113056","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Bank of Washington sued the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (LCRA) and LCRA Holdings Corporation (LCRA Holdings) for breach of contract and tort claims related to property redevelopment agreements. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claims, finding the Bank's theories either unpled or contractually unsupported. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for LCRA Holdings on the tort claims, holding that LCRA Holdings failed to demonstrate it was entitled to sovereign immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bank-of-washington-appellant-v-land-clearance-for-redevelopment-authority-113056","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87399:2025-10-07","opinionId":"6dbbbaaf-99a5-5420-b52e-c58aeba1274c","slug":"hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","caseName":"Hernandez Campbell\nvs. \nAdecco USA, INC.","caseNumber":"WD87399","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hernandez Campbell sued Adecco USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to employment background checks. The trial court granted summary judgment for Adecco on Campbell's disclosure and authorization claims. On appeal, Campbell raised four points, challenging the trial court's reliance on affidavits, the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the provision of a consumer notification, the clarity and conspicuousness of the notification, and the dismissal with prejudice. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on the affidavits, Campbell's failure to properly support his factual assertions, and the merits-based disposition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113095:2025-08-26","opinionId":"6d9378b2-9f4b-51ae-985e-8417b3c94274","slug":"rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","caseName":"Rayne Littlefield, Appellant, vs. Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars of The United States, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113095","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rayne Littlefield sued the Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for VFW, finding it exempt from the MHRA as a bona fide private membership club. On appeal, Littlefield argued that VFW's public events and advertising negated its exempt status. The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that VFW's public activities do not, by themselves, alter its status as a bona fide private membership club, thus exempting it from MHRA liability.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223936","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113153:2025-08-19","opinionId":"15cee353-dbd4-5c11-bb56-bf8e8bf1829a","slug":"jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","caseName":"Jennifer Kubinak, Appellant, v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113153","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jennifer Kubinak, a 64-year-old woman, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southeast Missouri State University on her claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Kubinak alleged she was paid less than similarly situated male and younger employees and that the University retaliated against her after she filed a discrimination charge. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kubinak failed to present admissible evidence or properly support her denials and additional facts as required by Rule 74.04(c)(2) to create a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112676:2025-07-29","opinionId":"9eacd0f0-8c29-5475-9f4e-20e2063201d2","slug":"michael-j-holmes-appellant-v-kenneth-zellers-andrew-bailey-mayor-tishaura-112676","caseName":"Michael J. Holmes, Appellant, vs. Kenneth Zellers, Andrew Bailey, Mayor Tishaura Jones, Bettye Battle-Turner, Richard Gray, Thomas Irwin, Erwin Switzer, Francis Slay, and City of St. Louis, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112676","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Holmes, whose federal drug convictions were vacated due to police misconduct, obtained a $2.5 million civil rights judgment against the involved officers. He then sought a declaratory judgment that either the State or the City of St. Louis was obligated to indemnify the officers and pay the judgment, with the claim against the City previously remanded by the Supreme Court. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, but the appellate court reversed that decision. The appellate court granted summary judgment for Holmes, holding that the Board of Police Commissioners, whose obligations the City inherited, had agreed to indemnify the officers through its policy and actions, thereby compelling the City to pay the judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-j-holmes-appellant-v-kenneth-zellers-andrew-bailey-mayor-tishaura-112676","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112865:2025-07-29","opinionId":"973e71fb-ecd7-5d23-8ab2-4d93aa06dcb9","slug":"lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","caseName":"Lucas E. Wilkinson, Appellant, vs. Farmers Holding Companies, D/B/A Capital Sand, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112865","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lucas Wilkinson sued Farmers Holding Companies d/b/a Capital Sand, Inc. for violating Missouri's service letter statute after his employment was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer failed to meet its threshold burden for summary judgment by not properly pleading an affirmative defense as required by Rule 55.08, instead merely asserting facts in its motion.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38390:2025-07-23","opinionId":"33054461-7ade-5356-8170-08ec2e789d44","slug":"ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","caseName":"A.O., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nLESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, d/b/a COX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, and COXHEALTH, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38390","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.O. sued Lester E. Cox Medical Centers and CoxHealth for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failure to protect, after a certified medical assistant allegedly sexually assaulted her during an allergic reaction observation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding A.O. failed to present competent medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care for her medical negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that A.O.'s claims required medical expert testimony, which she failed to provide, and that summary judgment for one defendant properly disposed of claims against all.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112875:2025-07-22","opinionId":"16ad2185-1fae-512b-aafd-0bee13dc20e9","slug":"tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","caseName":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, Respondent, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112875","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation purchased a property at a sheriff's sale under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law (MLRL). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) had previously recorded a lien on the property for unpaid sewer bills, pursuant to one of its ordinances. Tabernacle filed a quiet title action to extinguish the MSD lien, arguing the MLRL supersedes the MSD ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tabernacle, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the MLRL statute prevails over the MSD ordinance and extinguishes the lien.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113004:2025-07-15","opinionId":"0640c051-89aa-5f88-b16f-76b723aa3904","slug":"richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","caseName":"Richard Hershey, Appellant, vs. The Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Hershey sued the Curators of the University of Missouri and four individual employees, alleging violations of the Campus Free Expression Act (CFEA). The circuit court dismissed claims against the individual defendants and granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the CFEA does not authorize a cause of action against individuals in their individual capacities and that Hershey's appellate brief failed to properly challenge the summary judgment by not connecting arguments to the summary judgment record.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222197","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-hershey-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-et-113004","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112874:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8bbdc57e-8ed8-59ee-bceb-5cc81e2533e2","slug":"kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","caseName":"Kyle D. Becker, Appellant, vs. Thomas M. Schenk, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112874","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle D. Becker sued Thomas M. Schenk for personal injuries sustained during an amateur ice hockey game, specifically a broken wrist. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Schenk, concluding Becker had assumed the risk of injury. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment, holding that Becker expressly assumed the risk of breaking a bone by signing a clear and unambiguous liability waiver. The court also found that Becker impliedly assumed the inherent risks of playing ice hockey.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","summary-judgment","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87298:2025-06-17","opinionId":"f282cd7d-d5be-5965-a911-64ca4c6d1384","slug":"joseph-weixeldorfer-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87298","caseName":"Joseph Weixeldorfer\nvs. \nCity of Kansas City, Missouri, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87298","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Joseph Weixeldorfer, a former employee of the Kansas City Fire Department, sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri, alleging unauthorized disclosure of medical information, negligence, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City and denied Weixeldorfer's motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Petition. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the amendments because the proposed new parties were time-barred and lacked proper notice, and the new legal theories for sovereign immunity and breach of contract lacked merit or were untimely raised.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-weixeldorfer-v-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-d87298","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112941:2025-06-17","opinionId":"e51fffd9-422e-55db-8ddd-5cb27757155a","slug":"j-m-securities-llc-respondent-v-stephen-l-benner-appellant-112941","caseName":"J & M Securities, LLC, Respondent, vs. Stephen L. Benner, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112941","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Stephen L. Benner appealed the trial court's denial of his amended motion to dismiss, which challenged the subject matter jurisdiction to revive a judgment in favor of J & M Securities, LLC. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the denial of the amended motion to dismiss was not an appealable order, and Benner failed to timely appeal the underlying judgment of revival, which had become final.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221420","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/j-m-securities-llc-respondent-v-stephen-l-benner-appellant-112941","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":24,"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:ed113090:2025-06-03","opinionId":"0138a416-4ba6-5c97-a752-a28f27443785","slug":"ashley-dill-respondent-v-jason-hale-and-autocenters-bonne-terre-llc-appel-113090","caseName":"Ashley Dill, Respondent, vs. Jason Hale and Autocenters Bonne Terre, LLC., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113090","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashley Dill sued Jason Hale and AutoCenters Bonne Terre, LLC, alleging claims related to a vehicle purchase. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreement lacked consideration and was not signed by all parties. The appellate court affirmed the denial of arbitration as to Defendant Hale, but reversed the denial as to Defendant AutoCenters. The court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration from the contemporaneously signed installment contract and was enforceable against AutoCenters despite its lack of signature on the arbitration agreement itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221140","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ashley-dill-respondent-v-jason-hale-and-autocenters-bonne-terre-llc-appel-113090","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87209:2025-06-03","opinionId":"aa76a445-23dd-5d7b-91e5-5d00c93cef70","slug":"savana-atkisson-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d87209","caseName":"Savana Atkisson vs. Missouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD87209","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Savana Atkisson, a female corrections officer, sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) for sex discrimination and hostile work environment under the MHRA, alleging that a new gender announcement policy enabled offender sexual harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the DOC on both claims. On appeal, Atkisson challenged only the hostile work environment claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Atkisson failed to challenge an independent basis for the trial court's decision, specifically the finding that the DOC took appropriate remedial action in response to the alleged harassment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221081","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/savana-atkisson-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d87209","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38656:2025-05-28","opinionId":"de62c3ff-1f11-59bf-9a5e-8a575687b6a6","slug":"james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","caseName":"JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nCITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38656","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 702, sued the City of Poplar Bluff for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. They claimed the City breached the agreement by not hiring Union member Quinton Tillman for a Water Plant Operator position, instead hiring Daniel Sparks. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Sparks was an employee covered by the agreement and thus Tillman was not the only eligible internal applicant, negating the claim for job preference.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38745:2025-05-15","opinionId":"b1b03bdb-f899-5e06-b8f6-346cf46d07cd","slug":"janette-whitlow-appellant-v-curtis-whitlow-twajana-moss-and-tammy-henry-r-d38745","caseName":"JANETTE WHITLOW, Appellant\nv.\nCURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38745","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janette Whitlow sued Curtis Whitlow, Twajana Moss, and Tammy Henry for unjust enrichment, alleging they were enriched by her contributions to the acquisition of a family farm. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondents, concluding Whitlow's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the respondents failed to properly plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer as required by Rule 55.08.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/janette-whitlow-appellant-v-curtis-whitlow-twajana-moss-and-tammy-henry-r-d38745","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87304:2025-04-29","opinionId":"01ae60e8-df08-597f-9aaf-f8636de90478","slug":"rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","caseName":"RFJ Auto Properties, LLC\nvs. \nKnipp Real Estate, LLC, Knipp Real Estate II, LLC\nFletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC\nCorwin Imports of Jefferson City, III, Timothy F. Corwin","caseNumber":"WD87304","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Fletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to RFJ Auto Properties, LLC, in a dispute over a commercial lease's termination date. The trial court had certified its judgment as final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). The appellate court, however, determined it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court's judgment was not a final, appealable judgment, as it did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220042","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112856:2025-04-22","opinionId":"f03fc579-35e1-5771-9438-271241568257","slug":"gregory-fx-daly-in-his-official-capacity-as-the-collector-of-revenue-for-112856","caseName":"Gregory F.X. Daly, in his official capacity as the Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. Mary Anne Helmsing, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112856","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Gregory F.X. Daly, the Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, appealed a circuit court judgment that found Mary Anne Helmsing's income from several limited liability companies was not subject to the City's earnings tax. The Collector argued Helmsing was precluded from challenging the taxes due to failure to pay under protest and that her income was taxable. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Helmsing was not precluded from challenging the taxes and that her income as a non-active limited partner was not \"earned\" income subject to the City's earnings tax.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-fx-daly-in-his-official-capacity-as-the-collector-of-revenue-for-112856","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:ed113072:2025-04-22","opinionId":"42673150-19d8-5999-9653-3117d9fcd43e","slug":"jeremy-scott-and-stephanie-scott-appellants-v-farm-bureau-town-and-countr-113072","caseName":"Jeremy Scott, and Stephanie Scott, Appellants., vs. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113072","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy and Stephanie Scott sued Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Co. of Missouri, seeking coverage and indemnification for a car accident, alleging their policy was in effect. Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment, claiming it had non-renewed the policy by mailing notice. The Scotts denied receiving notice and argued Farm Bureau's notice method did not comply with statutory requirements. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the notice of non-renewal was properly sent as required by law.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219869","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeremy-scott-and-stephanie-scott-appellants-v-farm-bureau-town-and-countr-113072","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86389:2025-04-01","opinionId":"1f1291d8-5dc8-5a49-b733-3e8a0411fafe","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw\nvs.\nCrown Equipment Corp., Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD86389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation after a forklift accident resulted in the amputation of his leg, alleging defective design. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding him unqualified and his opinions unreliable, and subsequently granted summary judgment to Crown. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the expert was qualified and his opinions regarding the lack of a door as a design defect were reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Hanshaw's product defect claims.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100724:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c812d4c8-91a0-50d0-af79-7056f7a3fd86","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100724","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters filed a replevin claim against Jacob Dawson to recover vehicles he possessed after his father's death. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession and later entered a default judgment for damages, cancelling Dawson's jury trial due to his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and a pattern of obstructive behavior. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Dawson's constitutional claims regarding the right to a jury trial were unpreserved and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning him.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112808:2025-04-01","opinionId":"e5fee24b-65cb-53a4-920d-0635136b870b","slug":"william-sandbach-et-al-appellants-v-kms-kfc-llc-et-al-respondents-112808","caseName":"William Sandbach, et al., Appellants, v. KMS-KFC, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112808","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellants William and Jennifer Sandbach sued KMS-KFC, LLC, and KFC Corporation, Inc., alleging various torts after a confrontation with employees, during which security video evidence was destroyed. After the trial court granted summary judgment on most counts in the underlying case, Appellants filed an independent lawsuit for spoliation of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the spoliation action, holding that Missouri does not recognize an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence, and also denied Respondents' request for damages for a frivolous appeal.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218997","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-sandbach-et-al-appellants-v-kms-kfc-llc-et-al-respondents-112808","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":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112792:2025-03-25","opinionId":"666acc45-1c43-5885-9dbe-0cf40320d43d","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112792","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a $250,000 settlement paid to a plaintiff for discovery misconduct by the Attorney General's office and the Board of Police Commissioners. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding it was entitled to reimbursement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the legally significant date for a SLEF claim is when the suit or claim is filed, not when the underlying conduct occurred, and the City's claim was filed after the statutory deadline for reimbursement.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-and-andrew-bailey-missour-112792","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112785:2025-03-25","opinionId":"102d1198-943c-57f5-ad3a-5d18c62c458e","slug":"joseph-simmons-iii-et-al-appellants-v-keat-properties-llc-et-al-responden-112785","caseName":"Joseph Simmons III, et al., Appellants, vs. Keat Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112785","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, who were injured when a motorist drove into a Starbucks storefront, sued Keat Properties, LLC, McKnight Investors, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation for negligence and premises liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that the defendants owed no duty to protect invitees from unforeseeable third-party negligence, as a single prior incident ten years earlier was not sufficiently numerous or recent to establish foreseeability. The court also found that the parking lot's configuration did not, by itself, constitute a dangerous condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-simmons-iii-et-al-appellants-v-keat-properties-llc-et-al-responden-112785","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112714:2025-03-18","opinionId":"29b8dbb9-2162-5a50-bcf0-b757b116b835","slug":"arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","caseName":"Arch Energy, L.C., Appellant, v. City of Brentwood, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112714","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arch Energy, L.C. challenged an amendment to the City of Brentwood's zoning ordinance that removed gas stations as a conditional use in a specific district. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed the summary judgment as to Count I, holding that Arch Energy was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for its facial challenge to the ordinance and that the City failed to provide the statutorily mandated public notice for the amendment. The court also dismissed other points challenging the denial of Arch Energy's summary judgment motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218539","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100608:2025-03-18","opinionId":"1935ac89-d69a-5498-9281-b818a0944768","slug":"connie-lange-appellant-v-gmt-auto-sales-inc-respondent-100608","caseName":"Connie Lange, Appellant, vs. GMT Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100608","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Connie Lange appealed the circuit court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in her favor and overruling her motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration. Lange argued that GMT Auto Sales, Inc. (GMT) lacked the right to compel arbitration after assigning the contract, waived its right by filing a motion to dismiss, and that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that GMT retained its right to arbitrate, did not waive it by filing a motion to dismiss before its responsive pleading, and Lange's unenforceability argument was unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218516","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/connie-lange-appellant-v-gmt-auto-sales-inc-respondent-100608","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112630:2025-02-25","opinionId":"7380274d-f58c-53b3-9aec-bce665196c84","slug":"first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","caseName":"First Community Credit Union v. Samuel Rowley, Sheryl A. Rowley, Appellants, and Archdiocese of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112630","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Samuel and Sheryl Rowley appealed a summary judgment ruling that a durable power of attorney (DPOA) did not authorize them to designate themselves as payable-on-death (POD) beneficiaries of Thomas L. Nicastro's financial accounts. Nicastro had previously designated the Archdiocese of St. Louis as the sole beneficiary. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, strictly construing the DPOA and finding that its language did not explicitly authorize the Rowleys to engage in self-dealing by naming themselves as beneficiaries.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112826:2025-02-18","opinionId":"cf1b6a3e-fef0-5b9e-ac40-a45c93419c83","slug":"joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","caseName":"Joanne Knight, Appellant, v. Huilin Li, M.D., Sam Bishara, M.D., and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112826","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Joanne Knight filed a wrongful death claim against Dr. Huilin Li, Dr. Sam Bishara, and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd. (SLCC) following her husband's death from cardiac arrest. The trial court granted summary judgment for all respondents, striking Knight's expert witness against Dr. Li and finding no physician-patient relationship with Dr. Bishara and SLCC. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert and that material questions of fact remained regarding the physician-patient relationship.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217577","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","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:ed112410:2025-02-11","opinionId":"118b8dac-96d4-52b1-88f9-32384b867427","slug":"john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","caseName":"John L. Durnell, Respondent, vs. Monsanto Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112410","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"John L. Durnell sued Monsanto Company, alleging that exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims including strict liability failure to warn. A jury found in favor of Durnell on the strict liability failure to warn claim, awarding $1.25 million in compensatory damages. Monsanto appealed, arguing that Durnell's claim was both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the state-law claim was not preempted by FIFRA.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","other","negligence","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112652:2025-02-11","opinionId":"edee8ec5-1f77-59e8-a1f8-e28d24a67bc1","slug":"william-hoelting-et-al-respondents-v-hadley-grove-subdivision-homeowners-112652","caseName":"William Hoelting, et al., Respondents, vs. Hadley Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112652","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"William Hoelting and others sued Hadley Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association for trespass after a stormwater drainage pipe was installed on their property without permission, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the Hoeltings on their claim for injunctive relief, certifying it as final under Rule 74.01(b) while reserving damages and cross-claims for trial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the partial summary judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because the claims for injunctive relief and damages arose from the same underlying trespass and did not constitute a distinct judicial unit.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-hoelting-et-al-respondents-v-hadley-grove-subdivision-homeowners-112652","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87007:2025-01-28","opinionId":"cfa748a4-89ab-5e28-bfba-339b39855762","slug":"elad-gross-v-eric-schmitt-et-al-d87007","caseName":"Elad Gross\nvs.\nEric Schmitt, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD87007","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Elad Gross appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Attorney General's Office (AGO) on his claims that the AGO violated the Sunshine Law and the Missouri Constitution's free speech protections. Gross also challenged the trial court's protective order closing discovery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in closing discovery due to Gross's failure to provide a transcript. The court further held that the AGO properly complied with the Sunshine Law regarding record production delays and the closure of records related to potential litigation, thus rejecting the free speech retaliation claim.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216937","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elad-gross-v-eric-schmitt-et-al-d87007","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112664:2025-01-21","opinionId":"4ffc330b-31c2-593f-9d24-43ac76f89879","slug":"patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","caseName":"Patrick Carron, Appellant, v. Mark Schabbing & Darryl Green, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112664","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Patrick Carron sued Mark Schabbing and Darryl Green for tortious interference with a contract and business expectancy after his employment with Perry County Memorial Hospital was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for Schabbing and Green, finding they were released by a General Release and Waiver Carron signed as part of his separation agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Respondents were members of a \"related company\" to the Hospital, the Perryville Family Care Clinic, and thus were included in the scope of the release.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216876","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38331:2025-01-17","opinionId":"18f405e6-0ffc-52e8-a05d-473b9a6117cf","slug":"jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","caseName":"JANE DOE, a minor by next friend, T.N., Appellant\nvs.\nFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PIERCE CITY, MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38331","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jane Doe, a minor, sued First Baptist Church of Pierce City (FBC) for negligence, alleging sexual assaults suffered while participating in FBC's youth ministries program. The circuit court granted summary judgment for FBC, concluding that the First Amendment barred the negligence claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the First Amendment prohibits courts from entertaining negligence claims against religious organizations that would require excessive entanglement in religious doctrine, policy, and administration. The court also found that FBC was not required to plead the First Amendment as an affirmative defense, as it negates an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112690:2024-12-31","opinionId":"8c4fe192-5684-5eec-8339-c070a527d382","slug":"mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","caseName":"Mary Beth Fryman, Appellant, v. The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112690","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Fryman sued The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University for premises liability and negligence after falling on stairs on the Board's property. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding it immune from liability because Fryman's injury was not caused by an alleged dangerous condition of the stairs. The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation, as Fryman's expert opined the stairs were defectively designed and caused her fall, despite her testimony of tripping on her own feet.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112639:2024-12-24","opinionId":"90c9b95e-0a87-5a74-ab6c-31aaeb8c9594","slug":"the-wrecking-crew-inc-appellant-v-ohm-hotel-group-llc-et-al-respondents-112639","caseName":"The Wrecking Crew, Inc., Appellant, v. OHM Hotel Group, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112639","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Wrecking Crew, Inc. appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of OHM Hotel Group, LLC, et al., concerning a dispute over payment for demolition work. The central issue revolved around the authenticity of a waiver and release document, which The Wrecking Crew's president initially admitted signing but later, supported by a handwriting expert's affidavit, claimed was forged. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that the contradictory evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the waiver's legitimacy, which could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215958","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-wrecking-crew-inc-appellant-v-ohm-hotel-group-llc-et-al-respondents-112639","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112647:2024-12-24","opinionId":"641353b5-291d-59a4-a5ea-700b38251374","slug":"addie-smith-appellant-v-zion-travelers-missionary-baptist-church-responde-112647","caseName":"Addie Smith, Appellant, v. Zion Travelers Missionary Baptist Church, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112647","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Addie Smith sued Zion Travelers Missionary Baptist Church for damages under a premises liability theory after she fell and sustained injuries. The trial court denied Smith's motion to amend her petition to include an alternate theory of injury involving a defective door, and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Church. The appellate court reversed both orders, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend, which resulted in severe hardship to Smith and no undue prejudice to the Church. Consequently, the grant of summary judgment was also reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215959","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/addie-smith-appellant-v-zion-travelers-missionary-baptist-church-responde-112647","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38338:2024-12-17","opinionId":"2bae207c-e749-5fcb-b612-5ee2aaea9888","slug":"donald-w-ingrum-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-ralph-m-orthw-d38338","caseName":"DONALD W. INGRUM, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RALPH M. ORTHWEIN, Appellant\nv.\nCFM INSURANCE, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38338","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Estate of Ralph M. Orthwein sued CFM Insurance, Inc., alleging various claims related to the insurer's failure to pay policy limits for personal property after a fire. The trial court granted summary judgment for CFM Insurance on most counts and dismissed another, finding the insurer exempt from certain Missouri insurance laws as a Chapter 380 mutual insurance company. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Estate failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether CFM Insurance was operating under Chapter 380, despite a past failure to file amended corporate documents.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-w-ingrum-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-ralph-m-orthw-d38338","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"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:wd86868:2024-12-17","opinionId":"778eccd2-0860-5e93-8437-9c6cd15c3e43","slug":"derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","caseName":"Derek Fuemmeler, Et al.\nvs.\nMike and Mark Farms, LLC, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86868","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tenants Derek Fuemmeler and Steven Cleeton appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Mike and Mark Farms, LLC, et al. (Tregnago Defendants) and John and Cindy Winkleblack (Winkleblacks), and the denial of their own motion for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether two farm leases satisfied the statute of frauds, Section 432.010, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the leases provided sufficient means to identify the properties with reasonable certainty, thereby satisfying the statute of frauds. The court also noted that summary judgment was improperly granted to non-moving parties.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38046:2024-12-16","opinionId":"067f8e1f-6eae-5a46-abab-0c0ae1ef2384","slug":"robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","caseName":"ROBERT L. HALL, M.D., Appellant\nvs.\nUNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38046","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Hall, M.D., appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and denial of his own motion for summary judgment. Dr. Hall sought lifetime total disability benefits under a policy rider, arguing he was \"totally disabled\" prior to his age-60 policy anniversary, the policy's definition of total disability was ambiguous, or a genuine dispute of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Dr. Hall's arguments regarding policy interpretation or the existence of a factual dispute.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112829:2024-11-26","opinionId":"f1383f80-91b2-5c45-a56b-3e277fefb58b","slug":"stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","caseName":"Stacy A. Albright, Appellant, v. Union Electric Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112829","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacy Albright sued Union Electric Company for negligence and breach of contract after a fire damaged his home, alleging UE failed to turn off electrical power as requested. The circuit court granted summary judgment for UE, concluding Albright could not provide substantial evidence that electricity caused the fire. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that UE's summary judgment motion failed to meet its initial burden under Rule 74.04 by merely reciting Albright's petition allegations and an interrogatory response, thus the burden never shifted to Albright.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214924","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-214953","opinionId":"7e454faa-c855-5337-b05d-bc6eb2eda13c","slug":"americredit-financial-services-inc-dba-gm-financial-appellantcross-respon-112095","caseName":"Americredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Nicole M. Bell, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112095","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial, appealed the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Nicole M. Bell on her consumer class action counterclaim and GM Financial's deficiency claim. Bell cross-appealed the partial grant of summary judgment in favor of GM Financial on her counterclaim. The appellate court held that Bell and the class members had standing to bring the counterclaim, but found that GM Financial did not commit the alleged Uniform Commercial Code violations in its pre-sale and post-sale notices. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment in Bell's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/americredit-financial-services-inc-dba-gm-financial-appellantcross-respon-112095","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112642:2024-11-12","opinionId":"c03e4728-a2b8-551d-9c68-54ffe52ac5ac","slug":"robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-112642","caseName":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112642","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment that allowed St. Louis and St. Charles Counties to impose a retail sales tax on marijuana dispensaries in incorporated areas. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Article XIV, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which defines \"local government\" for taxing purposes. The appellate court reversed, holding that the constitutional provision unambiguously limits a county's taxing authority to unincorporated areas, while municipalities have taxing authority in incorporated areas. The court entered judgment in Robust's favor and enjoined further collection of taxes by multiple local governments.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robust-missouri-dispensary-3-llc-appellant-v-st-louis-county-missouri-et-112642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38164:2024-10-29","opinionId":"b07e28bb-3704-5add-b706-74df0d99db44","slug":"lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","caseName":"LUCAS HOLTERMAN, Appellant\nvs.\nLAVERNE COPELAND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38164","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lucas Holterman, an employee of Holterman Logging, was severely injured by a falling dead tree while working on land owned by Laverne Copeland. Holterman sued Copeland on theories of premises liability and inherently dangerous activity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Copeland, finding that she did not retain control of the property and logging was not inherently dangerous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that logging is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law and that Copeland owed no duty of care under premises liability due to the independent contractor rule.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","other","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38231:2024-10-23","opinionId":"9321d1ce-f5c0-5ba2-9bb6-6d85fd2eded0","slug":"henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","caseName":"HENRY COUNTY and TANEY COUNTY, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nW. ARCHIE DUNN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38231","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Henry and Taney Counties sued W. Archie Dunn, the former Sheriff of Jasper County, seeking to hold him personally liable under §50.650 for the cost of boarding Jasper County prisoners in their jails. The Jasper County Commission had refused to pay these costs, arguing they were not budgeted. The trial court granted summary judgment against Dunn, finding him personally liable. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the plain language of §50.650, which imposes personal liability for purchasing \"supplies, materials or equipment,\" does not apply to the cost of boarding prisoners.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/henry-county-and-taney-county-plaintiffs-respondents-v-w-archie-dunn-defe-d38231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38072:2024-09-30","opinionId":"47616f11-ee95-55c5-9293-3d472a9be7f7","slug":"annie-williams-plaintiff-appellant-v-hutcheson-enterprises-inc-and-title-d38072","caseName":"ANNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant \nv.\nHUTCHESON ENTERPRISES, INC. and TITLE CASH OF MISSOURI, INC., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38072","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Plaintiff Annie Williams sued Hutcheson Enterprises, Inc. and Title Cash of Missouri, Inc., alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hutcheson, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams' employment by Hutcheson. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Williams was employed by Title Cash, not Hutcheson, and her joint employer theory was not properly pleaded and relied on an outdated statutory definition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/annie-williams-plaintiff-appellant-v-hutcheson-enterprises-inc-and-title-d38072","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:sd38172:2024-09-19","opinionId":"a62bec08-5894-50ca-8a81-30014f102ad9","slug":"martin-leigh-pc-respondent-v-betty-williamson-et-al-and-dan-horgan-et-al-d38172","caseName":"MARTIN LEIGH, PC, Respondent\nv.\nBETTY WILLIAMSON, ET AL., and DAN HORGAN, ET AL., Respondents \nand LOANCARE, LLC., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38172","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"LoanCare, LLC appealed from a trial court's summary judgment regarding a contested foreclosure sale, where LoanCare's junior lien was extinguished. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, dismissed the appeal. The court found that LoanCare failed to comply with Rule 84.04(c) by not properly reciting the uncontroverted material facts from the summary judgment record, which materially impeded the court's review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-leigh-pc-respondent-v-betty-williamson-et-al-and-dan-horgan-et-al-d38172","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112415:2024-09-17","opinionId":"4a518a19-d2ce-559c-bbe4-ab09c35d85e2","slug":"city-of-st-louis-missouri-appellant-v-ryan-bertels-et-al-respondents-112415","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Ryan Bertels, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112415","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Ryan Bertels and Dana Hibbs, assistant attorneys general, on the City's professional malpractice claim. The City sought to recover $1.7 million paid in an underlying default judgment, arguing the attorneys failed to defend the Board of Police Commissioners. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for the attorneys, holding they were entitled to official immunity for their discretionary acts in deciding how to defend the Board. However, the court reversed the circuit court's order taxing costs against the City, finding no statutory authority to assess costs against a municipality.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211576","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-missouri-appellant-v-ryan-bertels-et-al-respondents-112415","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86567:2024-09-17","opinionId":"b7bb35a9-0581-5f34-bea5-dd3d06395867","slug":"tracy-sykora-ashley-sykora-and-matthew-sykora-v-farmers-insurance-company-d86567","caseName":"Tracy Sykora, Ashley Sykora and Matthew Sykora\nvs.\nFarmers Insurance Company, INC.","caseNumber":"WD86567","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Farmers Insurance Company appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sykoras on their equitable garnishment claim, which the trial court certified as final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). This was Farmers' second attempt to appeal the judgment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's Rule 74.01(b) certification was ineffective because the judgment did not dispose of a distinct \"judicial unit,\" as the Sykoras' bad faith failure to settle claim against Farmers remained pending and arose from the same facts and transactions.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211482","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tracy-sykora-ashley-sykora-and-matthew-sykora-v-farmers-insurance-company-d86567","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112575:2024-09-03","opinionId":"ce8a946b-11bc-54e9-b50c-f205fb5a9d41","slug":"bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","caseName":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112575","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, and Ricardo Farias Nicolopulos appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis regarding the termination of a lease agreement. The central issue was whether the Director of Airports had the authority under Ordinance 70909 to unilaterally terminate the lease. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the merits of the Director's authority, finding the ordinance's plain language granted such power. However, the court dismissed Appellants' remaining points on appeal due to noncompliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211078","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bi-national-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-city-of-st-louis-112575","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112349:2024-09-03","opinionId":"f361133b-fcdd-5272-b9f1-b4500e5a53f4","slug":"city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","caseName":"City of St. Louis, Respondent, and Joseph Brauer and Chris Pappas, Plaintiffs, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112349","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"The City of St. Louis sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a judgment it paid on behalf of a city police officer. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling it was entitled to reimbursement. The State appealed, arguing the claim was not authorized by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that SLEF liability is triggered by the date a claim is filed, not the date of the underlying conduct, and the claim in question was filed after SLEF liability for City police officers had terminated.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-st-louis-respondent-and-joseph-brauer-and-chris-pappas-plaintiffs-112349","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100427:2024-09-03","opinionId":"1ea74e3c-b3c8-52a7-8fa1-8e9234a96eb0","slug":"phillip-weeks-appellant-v-st-louis-county-mo-city-of-university-city-mo-c-100427","caseName":"Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, MO., City of University City, MO., City of Webster Groves, MO., Respondents, and Regional Justice Information Services Commission (REJIS), Defendant.","caseNumber":"SC100427","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Phillip Weeks appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Webster Groves and St. Louis County in his lawsuit alleging violations of Missouri's Sunshine Law. Weeks had requested \"raw data files\" and \"data generated from vehicle stop forms,\" including Department Serial Numbers (DSNs). The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that while electronically stored raw data can be a public record, the Sunshine Law does not require the creation of new records. The Court found that the summary judgment record was insufficient to determine whether the DSNs were responsive public records, required the creation of a new record, or were exempt from disclosure.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phillip-weeks-appellant-v-st-louis-county-mo-city-of-university-city-mo-c-100427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37525:2024-08-30","opinionId":"a4f6d94d-319c-59f8-b0cb-20a5fef6f617","slug":"michael-c-laws-jr-and-malinda-a-salinger-plaintiffs-appellants-v-j-christ-d37525","caseName":"MICHAEL C. LAWS, JR., and MALINDA A. SALINGER, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nJ. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, Personal Representative, and SUBSTITUTED PARTIES MOREAU, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37525","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Laws, Jr., and Malinda Salinger, children of the Decedent, contested their father's 2015 Will, which left them half of his estate, arguing they were \"interested persons\" with standing. The trial court granted summary judgment against them, concluding they lacked standing because a prior revocable trust excluded them from its assets. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that summary judgment is an improper disposition for lack of standing, and that the Children did have standing because a significant inheritance was part of the Estate, not the Trust, and would pass to them via intestate succession if the 2015 Will was set aside.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-c-laws-jr-and-malinda-a-salinger-plaintiffs-appellants-v-j-christ-d37525","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111983:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c820cdb1-6bcc-516b-a7d2-d21aa65b4a1e","slug":"clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","caseName":"Clifton Merritt and Tammy Merritt, Appellants, vs. Kenneth Wilson and Karen Wilson, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Clifton and Tammy Merritt sued Kenneth and Karen Wilson over an appurtenant easement and alleged oral and written agreements to terminate it. The Merritts claimed an oral agreement was reached in September 2020 and a written agreement via email in February 2021. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Wilsons, finding no contract existed and the statute of frauds barred the oral agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no meeting of the minds occurred for either the oral or written agreement, and the statute of frauds applied to the purported oral contract.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38381:2024-08-20","opinionId":"f9a5215b-b993-5f4d-a30b-5e6d12f1af84","slug":"sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","caseName":"SAMMY WOODS, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38381","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sammy Woods sued Trader's Insurance Company for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay after his claim for vehicle damage from an accident was denied. The insurer argued coverage was excluded under the policy's business and delivery exclusions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Woods on the breach of contract claim. The appellate court reversed, finding that Woods's use of the vehicle to transport chickens for trade constituted a \"delivery related business\" under the policy's exclusion, thus precluding coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112285:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c641001c-4066-5926-a28c-f1d34a564332","slug":"claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","caseName":"Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Patricia Thibeault, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112285","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Claymont Development, LLC, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the City of Wildwood regarding development moratoria and to compel the issuance of development permits for a residential subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that Claymont's claims were moot because the challenged moratoria had expired or been repealed, and the development plan had changed without proper resubmission, making it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210478","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37751:2024-08-15","opinionId":"4bb9e7da-5c88-57d1-b4c5-60de34197d45","slug":"lana-sloan-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-and-country-insurance-company-of-d37751","caseName":"LANA SLOAN, Appellant\nv.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN AND COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI and JESSE CLARK, JOSEPH WEBB, and BOBBETTE WEBB, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37751","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lana Sloan appealed from a summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri. Sloan sought medical payments coverage under a policy held by Joseph Webb after she was bitten by a dog owned by Webb's tenant, Jesse Clark, while on a public roadway adjacent to the insured premises. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Farm Bureau, finding the dog was not a \"condition on the insured premises\" as required for coverage. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the policy language, consistent with common understanding and prior case law, does not include mobile property like a dog as a condition on the premises.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lana-sloan-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-and-country-insurance-company-of-d37751","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38287:2024-08-13","opinionId":"8944aa79-e67f-55a6-8793-0f925832bbc7","slug":"john-lackey-plaintiff-appellant-v-phelps-county-regional-medical-center-d-d38287","caseName":"JOHN LACKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nPHELPS COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a PHELPS HEALTH, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38287","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Lackey sued Phelps County Regional Medical Center for disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act after his position was eliminated and he was not hired for a replacement role. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Medical Center, finding Lackey failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was \"disabled\" as defined by the MHRA. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Lackey did not provide evidence that the Medical Center knew of his claimed disability at the time of the adverse employment decision.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-lackey-plaintiff-appellant-v-phelps-county-regional-medical-center-d-d38287","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112211:2024-08-13","opinionId":"aef01c74-ff91-5228-b08b-ef3572bf3d6d","slug":"jefferson-capital-systems-llc-respondent-v-stephanie-rice-appellant-112211","caseName":"Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Respondent, vs. Stephanie Rice, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112211","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC (JCAP) appealed the circuit court's denial of its amended motion to compel arbitration of Stephanie Rice's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act counterclaim. JCAP argued it had standing to enforce an arbitration agreement through a series of assignments from the original debt holder, DriveTime. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that JCAP failed to provide competent evidence to establish a valid chain of assignment of arbitration rights. The court also denied Rice's motion for damages for a frivolous appeal, concluding that JCAP's amended motion was permissible on general remand.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210300","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-capital-systems-llc-respondent-v-stephanie-rice-appellant-112211","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38169:2024-08-12","opinionId":"6f2345f5-e7f5-5f0b-9585-4a53b91c41fc","slug":"brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","caseName":"BRANTLEY ATCHLEY and BECKY TITTLE, as survivors of Deceased Kayla Atchley, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and APEX PAVING COMPANY, Respondents-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38169","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants Brantley Atchley and Becky Jo Tittle, survivors of Kayla Atchley, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Apex Paving Company. Their negligence claim alleged that a shoulder drop-off on Highway 153 caused their daughter's fatal car accident, and Apex owed a common law duty to keep the roadway safe. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Apex had no common law duty as it had not yet mobilized to the site or performed any work in the area of the alleged defect. The court also denied the argument that summary judgment improperly limited the Appellants' theory of the case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111979:2024-07-23","opinionId":"0d9ff248-959b-5de3-bf85-e1197e79a6f9","slug":"danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","caseName":"Danny L. Dannenhauer, and the Danny L. Dannenhauer Family Trust, By and Through Brenda D. Gunlock, Trustee, Appellants, vs. Philip P. Briscoe, Personal Representative of Estate of John W. Briscoe, Briscoe and Brannon, and Wasinger Parham, L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111979","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danny L. Dannenhauer and the Dannenhauer Family Trust sued attorney John Briscoe for legal malpractice related to a real estate transaction and Wasinger Parham for failing to advise them of the potential malpractice claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Briscoe, finding the statute of limitations had expired, and later granted JNOV for Wasinger Parham. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment against Briscoe, holding that the legal malpractice claim accrued later than the trial court determined, making the suit timely. As a result, the court affirmed the JNOV for Wasinger Parham and remanded the case for adjudication of the claims against Briscoe.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112215:2024-07-16","opinionId":"6b1a8664-bb93-540d-8ec1-a547db807d93","slug":"1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","caseName":"1123 Washington Avenue Retail Condo, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112215","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Property owners within the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, which barred their claim seeking refunds for special assessments. The property owners argued they were not collaterally estopped from challenging the assessments as unlawful taxes under the Refund Statute. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the property owners' claim was time-barred by the more specific statute of limitations in the CID Act, rather than the general Refund Statute.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112264:2024-07-16","opinionId":"278a3a17-e7a8-5c88-ac13-8521e41fdd5c","slug":"larry-rice-appellant-v-midland-states-bank-and-midland-states-bancorp-inc-112264","caseName":"Larry Rice, Appellant, vs. Midland States Bank and Midland States Bancorp, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112264","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Larry Rice appealed the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice of his action against Midland States Bank and Midland States Bancorp, Inc. The appellate court found procedural confusion regarding whether the circuit court ruled on Rice's initial petition or his subsequently-filed amended petition. Citing Rule 55.33(a), the court determined the amended petition became operative as a matter of law, rendering the initial petition abandoned. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, as the circuit court either erred by ruling on an abandoned petition or by dismissing the amended petition without a proper motion against it.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-rice-appellant-v-midland-states-bank-and-midland-states-bancorp-inc-112264","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":"mo:sc100376:2024-07-09","opinionId":"3bc17cf9-616a-5080-bfa4-33fb11b7f74d","slug":"benjamin-ramirez-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situa-100376","caseName":"Benjamin Ramirez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, vs. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys' & Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100376","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-07-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Benjamin Ramirez, on behalf of a putative class, sued the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue and the State Treasurer for unjust enrichment, challenging the constitutionality of statutes authorizing certain court cost surcharges he paid. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the state officials, finding no constitutional violation. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment, holding that sovereign immunity bars Ramirez's suit against the Director and Treasurer in their official capacities.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/benjamin-ramirez-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situa-100376","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111696:2024-07-02","opinionId":"87258293-353e-5123-b4bd-9dd8013ab890","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters brought a replevin action against Jacob Dawson for five vehicles acquired during her relationship with Dawson's deceased father. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession of the vehicles and later entered a final judgment awarding damages after canceling Dawson's jury trial for nonappearance at a pretrial conference. The appellate court affirmed the partial summary judgment, finding the vehicles passed to Masters outside of probate, but reversed the final judgment as to damages, holding that canceling a jury trial as a sanction for nonappearance at a pretrial conference violated Dawson's constitutional right to a jury trial. The case was remanded for a jury trial on damages.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209435","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112259:2024-06-25","opinionId":"0d8ce11e-ef1b-5f57-bd5e-c3d8ec913b8f","slug":"anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","caseName":"Anne Marie Campbell, et al., Appellants, vs. Baxter International, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112259","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Anne Marie Campbell and other plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Plaintiffs had sued the defendants for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision related to an employee's tortious and criminal acts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was timely and properly considered without converting it to a summary judgment motion. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead proximate cause, as the alleged injuries were too far removed from the defendants' claimed negligence, particularly given the employee's acts were outside the scope of employment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209179","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","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":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"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:ed111924:2024-06-18","opinionId":"a506e6a1-d2da-5d76-89e0-5c41f6634990","slug":"jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","caseName":"Jeanette Layton, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111924","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jeanette Layton sued Mercy Hospital East Communities and other entities, alleging age discrimination in employment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employers, finding them exempt from MHRA liability as corporations \"owned or operated\" by a religious organization. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employers were indeed operated by a religious organization as a matter of undisputed fact, and that the employers complied with Supreme Court Rule 74.04 regarding summary judgment procedures.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86312:2024-06-11","opinionId":"6832c174-61c0-52bb-a513-cf9b2c35919d","slug":"deann-totta-v-ccsb-financial-corp-et-al-d86312","caseName":"Deann Totta\nvs. \nCCSB Financial Corp., Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86312","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"DeAnn Totta and her affiliated entities sued CCSB Financial Corp. and its Board of Directors for defamation, alleging that statements made in a Nominating Committee report during a contested Board election were false and defamatory. The circuit court granted summary judgment to CCSB. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the challenged statements were either constitutionally protected expressions of opinion or were substantially true, thus precluding Totta's defamation claims.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deann-totta-v-ccsb-financial-corp-et-al-d86312","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:wd86435:2024-06-11","opinionId":"7734f5a5-c563-5ad6-af54-e676047c11a0","slug":"michael-eivins-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86435","caseName":"Michael Eivins\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86435","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Eivins sued the Missouri Department of Corrections for age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the MHRA. After a prior appeal reversed a summary judgment for the DOC, Eivins sought a judicial determination that certain facts were admitted by the DOC for trial purposes, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Eivins argued the trial court erred by ignoring the law of the case and denying him equal protection. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the reversal of summary judgment nullified any prior admissions for trial purposes and that Eivins was not treated differently than the DOC.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment","employment-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-eivins-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86435","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38186:2024-06-04","opinionId":"28c979e4-1760-5001-adf6-375ebfa019f0","slug":"ronald-parker-a-single-person-and-lynn-parker-a-single-person-and-carl-an-d38186","caseName":"RONALD PARKER, a Single Person, and LYNN PARKER, a Single Person, and CARL and DEBBIE HORTON, Husband and Wife, and DOG PAW TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nCASTLE VIEW COUNTY CLUB, INC., a Missouri Not for Profit Corporation, in Good Standing, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38186","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Property Owners, who own interests in Castle View RV Resort, sued Castle View Country Club, Inc., the property manager, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding various rights and an accounting. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Castle View on both counts. On appeal, the Southern District vacated the summary judgment as to Count 1, holding that Castle View's statement of uncontroverted material facts improperly relied on Property Owners' objections to discovery requests, which do not constitute facts or admissions, thus failing to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Count 1.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-parker-a-single-person-and-lynn-parker-a-single-person-and-carl-an-d38186","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-208475","opinionId":"e7257e79-cb01-540d-8f5b-0822eed0214b","slug":"mark-boles-et-al-respondentcross-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-appel-111495","caseName":"Mark Boles, et al., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, et al., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111495","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nonresident employees challenged the City of St. Louis's earnings tax on income earned from remote work performed outside the city. The trial court partially granted summary judgment for the employees, finding remote work not taxable, and partially for the City on a Hancock Amendment claim, while dismissing class action claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the earnings tax ordinance does not apply to work done remotely outside the City and upholding the dismissal of class action claims and the denial of attorneys' fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-boles-et-al-respondentcross-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-appel-111495","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:ed111973:2024-05-14","opinionId":"19a5aea3-c43e-5d73-8603-33adddcc38aa","slug":"phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","caseName":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale, Appellants, v. Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111973","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale sued Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, alleging medical malpractice after Phyllis suffered three broken ribs during a spinal adjustment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Charlton, finding Ragsdale failed to demonstrate negligence or causation. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Charlton's treatment was negligent and caused Ragsdale's injuries, based on expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208117","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37824:2024-05-03","opinionId":"c2e39a0c-018d-5db9-a4e0-bc34b4a249f5","slug":"jd-a-minor-by-and-through-next-friend-melissa-storment-plaintiff-appellan-d37824","caseName":"J.D., a minor, by and through Next Friend, MELISSA STORMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nJENNIFER SANDERS, DR. MARK PIPER, and HARTVILLE R-II SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37824","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"J.D., a minor, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the Hartville R-II School District and its officials on claims alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was based on J.D.'s failure to comply with Rule 84.04, as her brief did not properly recount the uncontroverted material facts from the summary judgment record and contained argumentative statements, thereby impeding the court's impartial review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jd-a-minor-by-and-through-next-friend-melissa-storment-plaintiff-appellan-d37824","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100238:2024-04-30","opinionId":"a3b667bf-9755-5c22-97be-1a04f92a7d57","slug":"sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","caseName":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza, Appellants, vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100238","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza (Buyers) purchased land with a barn, which was later found to violate city zoning ordinances. Buyers sued Alliant National Title Insurance Co. (Alliant) for breach of a title insurance policy after Alliant refused to defend them in a lawsuit brought by the City of New Melle. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Alliant, concluding the policy provided no coverage. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy unambiguously required a recorded notice in the public records for coverage under Covered Risk 5, and that Exclusion 1(a) precluded coverage under Covered Risks 2 and 3 for ordinance violations.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207702","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86481:2024-04-23","opinionId":"240fde23-4ca8-51b3-83b1-67e2a8c277b2","slug":"willa-hynes-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86481","caseName":"Willa Hynes\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86481","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Willa Hynes's son died in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC), and she requested records under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hynes, finding the DOC violated the Sunshine Law, and after a bench trial, found the violation was knowing and purposeful, ordering the DOC to produce records, pay a $5,000 penalty, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the DOC violated the Sunshine Law and that the violation was purposeful, but reversed the portion of the judgment allowing the DOC to seek a protective order before producing the records.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/willa-hynes-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86481","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86444:2024-04-23","opinionId":"35c39155-f0be-5c79-934a-6cb614c6a704","slug":"mphlex-llc-et-al-v-sovereign-international-inc-et-al-d86444","caseName":"MPHLEX, LLC, Et al.\nvs.\nSovereign International, INC., Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86444","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants MPHlex, LLC, Anthony Pontier, and William Hudnall appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Sovereign International, Inc., et al., on Appellants' counterclaim asserting a per se antitrust violation. The Appellants argued that a noncompete agreement, entered as part of a settlement, constituted a per se antitrust violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the noncompete agreement in this factual context was not a per se antitrust violation and required a rule of reason analysis, which Appellants failed to plead. Accordingly, the court denied Appellants' request for attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mphlex-llc-et-al-v-sovereign-international-inc-et-al-d86444","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111491:2024-04-09","opinionId":"9156e0d3-ff21-5a0a-bb28-bbc25997de07","slug":"tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","caseName":"Tony Woolfolk, et al., Appellants, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111491","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tony Woolfolk's family sued St. Louis County police officers for wrongful death after Woolfolk, a passenger, died in a high-speed police chase that ended in a crash. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no duty, no proximate causation, and protection under official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that police officers do not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to voluntary passengers in a fleeing vehicle.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37950:2024-04-02","opinionId":"ec26f97f-a1a7-5c42-bea9-c24cb6f91512","slug":"douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","caseName":"DOUGLAS NIEMUTH, and CAROL NIEMUTH, Respondents/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nDONALD GASTON, and ROUNDCOUNT RANCH, LLC, Appellants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37950","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donald Gaston and Roundcount Ranch, LLC appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Douglas and Carol Niemuth regarding a right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) in a real estate contract. The Niemuths sought to purchase a portion of a 190-acre tract, while Gaston had a bona fide offer for the entire tract. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ROFR required the Niemuths to match the terms of the bona fide offer, including the purchase of the entire tract. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Gaston and Roundcount and award Gaston attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111782:2024-03-12","opinionId":"df8ae341-3f63-58f4-b2d3-008024affd96","slug":"dennis-laramore-appellant-v-zachary-jacobsen-et-al-respondents-111782","caseName":"Dennis Laramore, Appellant, vs. Zachary Jacobsen, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111782","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dennis Laramore filed a replevin petition seeking the return of items seized during a search warrant. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondent officers, finding Laramore's claim time-barred. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed and remanded, holding that the respondents' motion for summary judgment was legally defective for failing to attach a statement of uncontroverted material facts as required by Rule 74.04(c)(1). The court did not reach the merits of the statute of limitations issue.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206345","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dennis-laramore-appellant-v-zachary-jacobsen-et-al-respondents-111782","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111625:2024-03-12","opinionId":"bff342e4-f935-571b-b939-5f7fc94d4175","slug":"david-l-williams-respondent-v-st-charles-auto-mart-inc-dba-auto-solutions-111625","caseName":"David L. Williams, Respondent, vs. St. Charles Auto Mart, Inc. d/b/a Auto Solutions, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111625","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"David L. Williams sued St. Charles Auto Mart, Inc. d/b/a Auto Solutions under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, alleging the vehicle he purchased was modified and its extended warranty invalid. After a jury verdict for Auto Mart, the trial court granted Williams's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on liability and ordered a new trial on damages. Auto Mart appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting JNOV because it did not judicially admit elements of the MMPA claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Auto Mart failed to preserve its judicial admission arguments for appeal by not raising them in its Rule 72.01(b) filings or motion for new trial.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","summary-judgment","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206342","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-l-williams-respondent-v-st-charles-auto-mart-inc-dba-auto-solutions-111625","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:ed111682:2024-03-05","opinionId":"db2e17e5-7e09-59c1-8b12-e836b059567f","slug":"lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","caseName":"Lara and Brian Fallon, Appellants, v. Mark Easley, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111682","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lara and Brian Fallon sued attorney Mark Easley for legal malpractice, alleging he failed to timely draft and secure the execution of an amendment to their mother's trust. The proposed amendment would have increased the Fallons' share of the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment for Easley, finding that the Fallons, as non-client prospective beneficiaries of an unexecuted testamentary document, could not bring a malpractice claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Donahue privity exception does not extend to unexecuted testamentary instruments and that the Fallons could not prove proximate causation or damages without an executed document evidencing their mother's intent.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206137","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","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:wd86159:2024-03-05","opinionId":"2e0866c7-e65d-5940-acd9-da65179a7cf3","slug":"christopher-patterson-as-next-friend-for-minor-child-cp-v-stephanie-roach-d86159","caseName":"Christopher Patterson, As Next Friend for Minor Child C.P.\nvs.\nStephanie Roach, and Lakeview Terrace Property, LLC","caseNumber":"WD86159","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher Patterson, as next friend for minor child C.P., appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Lakeview Terrace Property, LLC (LTP) on a negligence claim after C.P. was bitten by another tenant's dog. An interlocutory default judgment had been entered against the dog's owner, Stephanie Roach, but damages were not assessed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the judgment was not final because it did not dispose of all parties and issues, and the trial court had not certified it as final under Rule 74.01(b).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-patterson-as-next-friend-for-minor-child-cp-v-stephanie-roach-d86159","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85527:2024-02-20","opinionId":"306b5746-cbdb-5fc7-a0d3-d38d31d37d83","slug":"shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","caseName":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company\nvs. \nTrevor Hill, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander","caseNumber":"WD85527","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment holding that a minor child was not a resident of her natural father's household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion, after the child was injured on the father's property. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the respondents and denied Shelter's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings, holding that summary judgment was improper because the ultimate factual determination of the child's residency remained in dispute, even with stipulated facts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37922:2024-02-14","opinionId":"64f3657a-28d4-5f97-b514-02591aca361f","slug":"michael-a-predovic-marilyn-m-predovic-paul-r-etheridge-elizabeth-a-etheri-d37922","caseName":"Michael A. Predovic, Marilyn M. Predovic, Paul R. Etheridge, Elizabeth A. Etheridge, Timbermill Homeowners Association, Appellants\nvs.\nThe Empire District Electric Co., and Chuck Pennell, Assessor, Taney County, Missouri, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37922","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael and Marilyn Predovic, Paul and Elizabeth Etheridge, and Timbermill Homeowners Association (Appellants) sought to establish title to real estate on Lake Taneycomo, which The Empire District Electric Company (Empire) claimed in fee simple. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Empire, concluding a 1912 deed conveyed fee simple title. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the 1912 deed conveyed only a flowage easement, not fee simple title, because the deed's premises limited the conveyance \"for lake purposes.\"","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-a-predovic-marilyn-m-predovic-paul-r-etheridge-elizabeth-a-etheri-d37922","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:ed111172:2024-02-13","opinionId":"605a472c-e33e-5ddf-8608-1124659bb7e4","slug":"molly-kruse-respondent-v-jonathan-r-karlen-et-al-appellant-111172","caseName":"Molly Kruse, Respondent, vs. Jonathan R. Karlen, et al., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111172","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jonathan R. Karlen appealed pro se from a trial court's grant of final summary judgment to Molly Kruse. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to numerous briefing deficiencies, including the failure to file an appendix, an inadequate statement of facts, and the absence of points relied on. Crucially, the court noted that the appellant submitted an appellate brief containing an overwhelming majority of inaccurate and entirely fictitious case citations, many generated by artificial intelligence. Finding the appeal frivolous, the court also awarded $10,000 in damages to the Respondent under Rule 84.19.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/molly-kruse-respondent-v-jonathan-r-karlen-et-al-appellant-111172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111694:2024-01-30","opinionId":"89c26fd7-bdd3-53f5-afee-0bac25554242","slug":"john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","caseName":"John Carlton, Appellant, vs. Brandon Means, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111694","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Carlton sued Officer Brandon Means for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular collision, alleging negligence or malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Officer Means, concluding he was entitled to official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the malice exception to official immunity did not apply because there were no facts demonstrating Officer Means acted with the requisite intent to injure or prejudice Carlton, even if his conduct was reckless.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","auto-accident","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100089:2024-01-30","opinionId":"a2e81732-b981-5ae9-b5aa-06dccb60fdf8","slug":"dane-templeton-appellant-v-charles-orth-do-and-orthopedic-surgeons-inc-re-100089","caseName":"Dane Templeton, Appellant, vs. Charles Orth, D.O., and Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100089","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dane Templeton sued Dr. Charles Orth and Orthopedic Surgeons Inc. for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in treatment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dr. Orth, finding Templeton's action was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Templeton's actions of seeking an alternative treatment plan and discontinuing Dr. Orth's prescribed antibiotics without consultation terminated the physician-patient relationship, thus ending the continuing care tolling doctrine before the lawsuit was filed.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","personal-injury","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dane-templeton-appellant-v-charles-orth-do-and-orthopedic-surgeons-inc-re-100089","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"},{"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:ed111188:2024-01-16","opinionId":"fed4d779-d09b-51f9-82a3-05e5d5acd846","slug":"cab-jr-scb-and-sms-by-and-through-their-next-friend-gwb-respondents-v-ken-111188","caseName":"C.A.B., JR., S.C.B., AND S.M.S. BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND G.W.B., Respondents, vs. KENDRA PERPICH, INDIVIUDALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAITLIN N. BOSTER, Appellant","caseNumber":"ED111188","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"This appeal concerns the right to control the cremated remains of Kaitlin Boster, disputed between her minor children and her mother, Kendra Perpich. The trial court granted summary judgment to the children, ordering the funeral home to deliver the remains to them, and denied Perpich's motion to intervene as personal representative of the estate. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the remains, finding the children failed to demonstrate their superior right, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also denied Perpich's intervention point as moot, concluding there was no longer a justiciable controversy regarding the personal property.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cab-jr-scb-and-sms-by-and-through-their-next-friend-gwb-respondents-v-ken-111188","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100043:2023-12-19","opinionId":"28008bd1-bbda-5d1d-a1a0-69ba4eda7cdc","slug":"city-of-harrisonville-et-al-appellants-v-missouri-dept-of-natural-resourc-100043","caseName":"City of Harrisonville, et al., Appellants, v. Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources and Board of Trustees for the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100043","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"The City of Harrisonville appealed a circuit court's judgment that overruled its motion for summary judgment and sustained the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund's motion for summary judgment in a Sunshine Law dispute. The circuit court found certain records were closeable under statutory exceptions. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the City's appeal, holding that its brief violated multiple provisions of Rule 84.04, which substantially impeded appellate review and preserved no issues for consideration. The Court also noted that even if reviewed, the judgment would be affirmed because the City failed to appeal all independent bases for the summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203716","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-harrisonville-et-al-appellants-v-missouri-dept-of-natural-resourc-100043","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111671:2023-12-19","opinionId":"97f1e869-826a-581f-8888-eaaf7be74f41","slug":"stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","caseName":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC, Appellant, v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111671","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging MSD breached temporary construction easements by occupying property beyond verbally represented time limits. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MSD, finding the alleged oral agreements void under Section 432.070 and barred by the parol evidence rule. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that contracts with municipal corporations must be in writing and that the written easements were completely integrated and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence of oral representations.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203699","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111564:2023-12-05","opinionId":"ee2a43d6-a4c5-5863-953d-6194011f8cfd","slug":"mallard-pointe-lot-owners-association-inc-respondent-v-thomas-flynn-wilma-111564","caseName":"Mallard Pointe Lot Owners Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Thomas Flynn & Wilma Hart-Flynn, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111564","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Thomas Flynn and Wilma Hart-Flynn appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Mallard Pointe Lot Owners Association, Inc., which had sought injunctive relief and damages for breach of a subdivision restrictive covenant. The Association alleged the Flynns violated the covenant by failing to submit a builder's checklist and construction deposit before building a fence. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the Association failed to provide the required 20 days' advance written notice for a hearing to impose a fine, as stipulated in the restrictive covenant.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mallard-pointe-lot-owners-association-inc-respondent-v-thomas-flynn-wilma-111564","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111623:2023-11-28","opinionId":"0a4f862e-1643-5d5c-9791-c1e68c37414f","slug":"topping-estates-carey-mullen-eric-danker-and-carter-oldfield-appellants-v-111623","caseName":"Topping Estates, Carey Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield, Appellants, vs. The Spalitto Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111623","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Topping Estates, a subdivision association, and its alleged trustees appealed from the circuit court's partial summary judgment, which found the subdivision's indentures expired, void, or invalid. The circuit court certified the order for appeal, but the appellate court determined that the partial summary judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because pending counterclaims arose from the same operative facts. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203043","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/topping-estates-carey-mullen-eric-danker-and-carter-oldfield-appellants-v-111623","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111401:2023-11-28","opinionId":"925964c7-087f-5b2e-b764-44208cb61936","slug":"kyle-klosterman-appellant-v-vacation-management-solutions-llc-respondent-111401","caseName":"Kyle Klosterman, Appellant, vs. Vacation Management Solutions, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111401","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kyle Klosterman sued Vacation Management Solutions, LLC (VMS) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) after VMS canceled his reservation and offered a new one at a higher price. The trial court denied Klosterman's motion for partial summary judgment and, following a bench trial, entered judgment for VMS, finding Klosterman did not purchase merchandise. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing VMS to file a late response to the summary judgment motion, and that VMS did not violate the MMPA because its terms and conditions allowed for price changes without notice.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203041","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-klosterman-appellant-v-vacation-management-solutions-llc-respondent-111401","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}