Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownED94264

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.

Opinion

MARCH 15, 2011

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

  1. ED94264 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V GEORGE L. TREADWAY,

APP

  1. ED94278 JOSHUM SMITH, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94307 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V TODD MARTIN, APP
  1. ED94361 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V MARQUISE ATKINS, APP
  1. ED94427 INTERFOOD, INC.,ET AL, RES V LARRY RICE,ET AL, APP
  1. ED94476 JARRELL BROOKS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94487 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V. CAROLE CHALK, APP
  1. ED94599 JEROME MARTIN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94606 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V SCOTT A ADAMS, APP
  1. ED94631 KRISTA HOSTETTER, APP V CITY OF HERMANN, RES

MARCH 15, 2011

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

  1. ED94651 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES, V STEVE PERKINS, APP
  1. ED94774 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V EUGENE MCCRAY, APP
  1. ED94782 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V RICHARD HARPER, APP
  1. ED94784 PETER MYLES, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94833 TOMMY THOMAS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94950 CHARLES BURSTON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED94970 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ROGER L. WESTON, JR, APP
  1. ED94997 MATTHEW AHEARN, APP V LEWIS CAFE, INC, RES
  1. ED95119 BRANDON FARMER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95140 THOMAS WORMINGTON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

MARCH 15, 2011

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

  1. ED95154 DONALD JORDAN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95160 DAVID PORTING, APP V SECOND INJURY FUND, RES
  1. ED95279 IN THE INTEREST OF:M.N.J., M.I.J., M.G.J. & M.K.J.
  1. ED95292 CHARATY WHITE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95329 DARREN ACKERSON, APP V AGF, INC. & DES, RES
  1. ED95434 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.T.
  1. ED95435 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.A.E.
  1. ED95449 KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, APP V DUTCHTOWN CARE, RES
  1. ED95511 PAMELA ANDERSON, APP V US BANK NATN'L ASSOC, RES
  1. ED95569 MATT MULLEN, APP V PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT, RES

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

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.

Injured in a similar issue?

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

Read The Personal Injury GuideGuide
Civil Litigationmajority2,703 words
Read opinion
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.

per_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

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.

Injured in a similar issue?

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

Read The Car Accidents GuideGuide
Personal InjuryWrongful Deathper_curiam3,654 words
Read opinion