OTT LAW

John Buff, Appellant, v. Donald Roper, Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED85318

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: John Buff, Appellant, v. Donald Roper, Respondent. Case Number: ED85318 Handdown Date: 01/25/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Washington County, Hon. Troy Hyde Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Andrew W. Hassell Opinion Summary: John Buff appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: No appeal lies from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Citation: Opinion Author: George W. Draper III, C.J. Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and Norton, JJ., concur. Opinion: John Buff (Appellant) appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appeal dismissed. Initially, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction. If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, then it should be dismissed. Fischer v. City of Washington , 55 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). Here, Appellant seeks to appeal from the circuit court's judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. An appeal does not lie from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole , 97 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. banc 2003); McDermott v. State , 120 S.W.3d 261, 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. In response,

Appellant filed his Appellant's Brief that argues the merits of his appeal. Appellant offers no argument about the judgment's appealability. To the extent that Appellant may be arguing that he is entitled to review because he is making a claim of actual innocence, he offers no legal support for this assertion. Indeed, a petitioner's remedy where a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied is to file a new writ petition in a higher court. Webster v. Purkett , 110 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Appellant has not filed a new writ petition. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930

affirmed

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

real-estateper_curiam1,904 words

Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

real-estatemajority3,613 words

Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073

reversed

In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.

real-estatemajority2,252 words

Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

real-estatemajority4,531 words

State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831

affirmed
real-estatemajority3,220 words