Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

State of Missouri Division of Family Services, ex rel., J.D., minor by S.W., next friend and S.W., individually, Respondents, v. L.P., Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownED76014

Car Accident Claim Route

Reading this opinion because of a crash or disputed fault?

If this case-law research connects to a current Missouri crash, route the question through the car-accident claim path with the opinion source preserved.

Useful Intake Details

  • Police report and photos
  • Insurance contacts
  • Treatment and symptoms
Car AccidentsReview The Car Accident Guide

Parties & Roles

Appellant
L.P.

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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 car accidents 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

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri Division of Family Services, ex rel., J.D., minor by S.W., next friend and S.W., individually, Respondents, v. L.P., Appellant. Case Number: ED76014 Handdown Date: 02/29/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Frank A. Conard Counsel for Appellant: Lee Elliott Counsel for Respondent: Steven B. Hillemann Opinion Summary: Appellant, L. P., ("father"), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting the respondent's, S. W.'s, ("mother"), motion to dismiss which asserted that father's request for a determination of paternity, custody and support had already been determined by the court. Father was subsequently killed in an automobile accident. DISMISSED. Division One Holds: Father's subsequent death extinguished his claim for a declaration of visitation and custody rights, thereby rendering his appeal moot. Citation: Opinion Author: Gary M. Gaertner, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Simon and Dowd, JJ., concur. Opinion: Appellant, L. P., ("father"), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting the respondent's, S. W.'s, ("mother"), motion to dismiss which asserted that father's request for a determination of paternity, custody and support had already been determined by the court. Father was subsequently killed in an automobile

accident. We dismiss the appeal as moot. On June 8, 1991, mother gave birth to a daughter, J. D., ("child"). On May 5, 1992, a judgment of paternity was entered against father. On September 1, 1998, the court's order of support was modified. Father appealed that decision and attached a petition requesting, among other things, an order granting him a visitation and temporary custody schedule with child. Mother filed a motion to dismiss father's petition asserting "[p]aternity, custody and support have been determined by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County." The trial court granted mother's motion to dismiss and father appealed. Father raised one point on appeal. Father alleged the trial court erred in dismissing the petition requesting a declaration of visitation and temporary custody rights. On January 19, 2000, this court received a motion for suggestion of death, which stated father was killed in an automobile accident on or about January 14, 2000. As father's death acts to extinguish his claim, we therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. See generally, Winters v. Coopers, 827 S.W.2d 233 (Mo.App.E.D. 1991). Respondents' motions for sanctions and attorney's fees are denied. Based on the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Cases

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