Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownED95248

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

DECEMBER 06, 2011

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

  1. ED95248 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V LAVINCENT T ROBINSON,

APP

  1. ED95560 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ARTOSKA GILLISPIE, APP
  1. ED95757 DEANNA MAJESKI, RES V FRANK MAJESKI, APP
  1. ED95874 RANDY STONE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96202 ANDRE WILLIAMS, SR., APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED96464 KIMBERLY MOTHERSHEAD, RES V RUSS MOTHERSHEAD,

APP

  1. ED96515 IN THE INTEREST OF: K.L. & D.L. III
  1. ED96631 GARY HALL, APP V LARRY JACKSON, RES

CORRECTION:

  1. ED95283 VICKI A. FLANIGAN, RES V. DAVID W. FLANIGAN, APP

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