State of Missouri ex rel. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Relator v. The Honorable W. Stephen Nixon, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownSC86530
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
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion
Case Style: State of Missouri ex rel. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Relator v. The Honorable W. Stephen Nixon, Respondent. Case Number: SC86530 Handdown Date: 08/02/2005 Appeal From: Original Proceeding in Prohibition Counsel for Appellant: Juliet A. Cox, David S. Ladwig and Jerome T. Wolf Counsel for Respondent: Richard L. Rollings, Jr., Anthony M. Totta, Mark E. Parrish, Robert M.N. Palmer and William G. Petrus Opinion Summary:
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting enforcement of a judgment imposing obligations on it to maintain and index certain confidential documents. Cooper Tire also seeks to prohibit enforcement of the order of contempt respondent imposed on it because it failed to comply with that part of the judgment. Writ Made Permanent as Modified Court en banc holds: For the reasons expressed in Thera Oleta Lavelock, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al. , __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc 2005) (No. SC86904, decided Aug. 2, 2005), this Court struck from the judgment the maintenance and indexing requirements that Cooper Tire challenges in this writ proceeding. A contempt judgment cannot be based on willful disobedience of an order not lawfully made by the trial court. The disposition of Cooper Tire's direct appeal renders this writ proceeding moot as to the obligation to maintain and index the subject documents. Respondent's issuance of an order of contempt was an abuse of discretion. The preliminary writ is made absolute as modified to prohibit enforcement of the order of contempt.
Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote: Writ Made Permanent as Modified. Opinion:
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. ("Cooper Tire") seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting enforcement of a judgment imposing obligations on it to maintain and index certain confidential documents. Cooper Tire also seeks to prohibit enforcement of the order of contempt Respondent imposed on it because it failed to comply with the judgment. (FN1) For the reasons expressed in Thera Oleta Lavelock, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al. , __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc 2005) (No. SC86904, decided Aug. 2, 2005), Cooper Tire's direct appeal of the judgment, this Court struck from the judgment the maintenance and indexing requirements that Cooper Tire challenges in this writ proceeding. A contempt judgment cannot be based on willful disobedience of an order not lawfully made by the trial court. Mo. Elec. Power Co. v. City of Mountain Grove , 176 S.W.2d 612, 616 (Mo. 1944). The disposition of Cooper Tire's direct appeal renders this writ proceeding moot as to the obligation to maintain and index the subject documents. Respondent's issuance of an order of contempt was an abuse of discretion. The preliminary writ is made absolute as modified to prohibit enforcement of the order of contempt.
All concur.
Footnotes: FN1. The facts of this case are discussed in Thera Oleta Lavelock, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al. , __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc 2005) (No. SC86904, decided Aug. 2, 2005).
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501
L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987
The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485
Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.
M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141
The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.