Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownED95065

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

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

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

  1. ED95065 ARTHUR SMITH, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95283 VICKI A. FLANIGAN, RES V DAVID W. FLANIGAN, APP
  1. ED95755 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V EARL RINGO, APP
  1. ED95794 DAVID BOXLEY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95990 DONNA KESSLER, RES V MONARCH FIRE PROT. DIST.,

APP

  1. ED96056 STATE OF MO, RES V ROY HANDLEY, APP
  1. ED96079 RICHARD HOLLORAN, APP V STL INVESTIGATIONS, RES
  1. ED96118 JEREMY L GOODSON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96257 QUINTON C. BENSON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96290 TAVIS DEAN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

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

  1. ED96341 RAYMOND HINTON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96418 WILBERT SHEPARD, APP V SECOND INJURY FUND, RES
  1. ED96475 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V RICKY CODY, APP
  1. ED96728 GREG MUNGER, APP V DIV OF EMPLOY SECURITY, RES
  1. ED96751 AMANDA LESTINA, RES V SECOND INJURY FUND, APP

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