Lonnie L. Garrison, Personal Representative of the Estate of Laura H. Garrison, Deceased, Appellant, v. Loyd A. Karr, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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 Western District Case Style: Lonnie L. Garrison, Personal Representative of the Estate of Laura H. Garrison, Deceased, Appellant, v. Loyd A. Karr, Respondent. Case Number: 53812 Handdown Date: 04/21/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Worth County, Hon. John C. Andrews Counsel for Appellant: Jerold L. Drake Counsel for Respondent: Barry Anderson Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Lowenstein, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, JJ. Opinion: O R D E R Lonnie Garrison, personal representative of the estate of Laura Garrison, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Loyd Karr on Mr. Garrison's two-count petition claiming undue influence and fraudulent misrepresentation. Mr. Garrison sought money damages as a result of certain inter vivos conveyances made by his mother, Ms. Garrison, to her brother, Mr. Karr, which he claimed Mr. Karr procured through undue influence and fraudulent misrepresentation. On appeal, Mr. Garrison contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Mr. Karr. He asserts that the evidence created the presumption, which was not rebutted, that the conveyances were procured by Mr. Karr's undue influence over Ms. Garrison, as well as his fraudulent misrepresentation of certain material facts concerning Ms. Garrison's relationship with Mr. Garrison. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment that Mr. Karr did not exercise undue influence on Ms. Garrison and the court's judgment that Mr. Karr did not fraudulently
misrepresent facts to Ms. Garrison was not against the weight of the evidence, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b) Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389