Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownED96833

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

FEBRUARY 13, 2013

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

  1. ED96833 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V LARRY DIETZ, APP
  1. ED97751 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ARCHIE BLANKENSHIP, APP
  1. ED97797 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DEVIN MOSLEY, APP
  1. ED97975 MICHAEL J. POLITTE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED97980 MOSES HARDWICT, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98033 DAMON HOSICK, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98080 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ALLEN D. GILES, APP
  1. ED98114 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V LETO LIVERETTE, APP
  1. ED98135 JAMES DENNIS GRAY, APP V SUSAN ANN GRAY, RES
  1. ED98158 WALTER J. WRIGHT ET AL RES V SHIRLEY SIDES, APP
  1. ED98184 MASSIGH J. STALLMAN, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI,

RES

FEBRUARY 13, 2013

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

  1. ED98208 LAMONT PARKER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98290 HARRISTON BECK, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98375 CHAD E. FRAZER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98411 COLETTE NEWSOME, APP V LUTHERAN SENIOR & DES,

RES

  1. ED98435 JIMMIE L. WALKER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
  1. ED98468 JOHNNIE COOPER, APP V THE MISSOURI LOTTERY, RES
  1. ED98469 F. CHRISTIAN, APP V STL BOARD POLICE ET AL, RES
  1. ED98503 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R.S.
  1. ED98653 MICHAEL HUTSON, APP V. SECOND INJURY FUND, RES
  1. ED98850 BRODERICK HAWKINS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI,

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