Orders Pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and/or 84.16(b)
Decision date: UnknownED96905
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.
Opinion
JUNE 05, 2012
THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).
- ED96905 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V KELVIN MOSBY, APP
- ED96906 TERRY WES SANDERS, APP V E.A. KEITHLEY, RES
- ED96935 PIETRO HICKEY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
- ED97029 LARRY SMALLWOOD, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
- ED97172 XIAORAN FU, RES V NEERAJA VEMULAPALLI, APP
- ED97200 ANGEL K. CHINN, APP V KYLE G. CHINN, RES
- ED97287 DARIUS WHITSON, APP V DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
RES
- ED97297 MARKEISHA SIMPSON, APP V NATIONAL ARCHIVES, RES
- ED97332 FIRST BANK, RES V BYRON R. HAYES, APP
- ED97410 DAROLD WALKER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, APP
- ED97752 STEVEN REICHARDT, RES V SECOND INJURY FUND,
APP
- ED98069 MIDWEST ACCEPT CORP RES V JONATHAN CLAYTON APP
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
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.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
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.
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
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.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389