Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Orders Pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and/or 84.16(b)

Decision date: UnknownWD70532

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Criminal Law
Discuss a Similar Criminal Law Matter(314) 710-2740
View Original on courts.mo.gov

Opinion

JULY 6, 2010 WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

WD70532 Charles W. Ezell vs. State of Missouri WD70728 Terry A. Brown vs. State of Missouri WD71341 Daniel W. Loehr vs. State of Missouri WD71473 Carl Stasi vs. Truman Medical Center, Inc., and Karen Gaddis -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

None -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830

remanded

The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Call About This ClaimAsk About This Claim
Read The Medical Malpractice GuideGuide
Personal Injurymajority12,101 words
Read opinion