OTT LAW

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

Decision date: UnknownWD73069

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

MAY 1, 2012 WESTERN DISTRICT

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

WD73069 Lance Livingston vs. State of Missouri WD73233 Patrick McGinness vs. Kansas City Missouri School District WD73249 Consolidated with WD73233 WD73485 Aaron L. Midgyett vs. State of Missouri WD73495 John M. Mathis vs. State of Missouri WD73677 Ryan Hettenhausen vs. Director of Revenue WD73977 Charles Hogue vs. Treasurer of The State of Missouri- Custodian of The Second Injury Fund WD74125 Richard Carden vs. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., et al

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

WD73243 State of Missouri vs. Elmer L. Tatum WD73267 State of Missouri vs. Carlos Sarmiento WD73557 State of Missouri vs. Travis L. Knott WD73837 State of Missouri vs. Justin Witt

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

affirmed
personal-injurymajority3,747 words

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

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.

personal-injurymajority2,703 words

Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020

remanded

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.

personal-injuryper_curiam4,488 words

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

affirmed

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.

personal-injuryper_curiam3,654 words

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

affirmed
personal-injurymajority7,717 words