Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownED95146

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

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

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

  1. ED95146 LARRY REED, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95269 RAFAEL A. JONES, SR., APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95272 RAMELL D DUNN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95331 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V THOMAS FREEMAN, APP
  1. ED95349 HENRY GRIFFIN-EL, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95395 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DONAHUE P GOINS, APP
  1. ED95439 ALONZO TOLEN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95527 JAMES L. GRAVES, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95537 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ERIC J GRAY, APP
  1. ED95629 RICK FAVALORO, APP V DIANE LAMBOLEY, ET AL, RES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

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

  1. ED95685 BRIAN C. BELLON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95690 CARLOS ECHOLES, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95718 ANDRE SMITH, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95774 PHILANDER MCCALEB, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95787 KEITH T ROBINSON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95835 JOSEPH E FLEMING, SR, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95865 JEFFREY MUELLER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED95868 JESSIE MIDDLETON, APP V PAMELA BAKER, RES
  1. ED95897 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V HAROLD MOORE, APP
  1. ED95913 MIKEAL J. FRANCE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

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

  1. ED95973 OTIS FRAZIER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96042 TORREY LINDSEY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96102 MICHAEL JANSEN, APP V CONTRACT TRANSPORT, RES
  1. ED96203 JOHN KINNIKIN, APP V SECOND INJURY FUND, RES
  1. ED96253 MELISSA GUSTAFSON, APP V FULL SERVICE MAINT., 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.

Call About This ClaimAsk About This Claim
Read The Personal Injury GuideGuide
Civil Litigationmajority2,703 words
Read opinion

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.

per_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

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.

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 Car Accidents GuideGuide
Personal InjuryWrongful Deathper_curiam3,654 words
Read opinion