Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City, Missouri, Appellant, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Amicus Curiae, v. Donald E. DeWitt, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City, Missouri, Appellant, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Amicus Curiae, v. Donald E. DeWitt, Respondent. Case Number: 53180 Handdown Date: 10/14/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Harold L. Lowenstein Counsel for Appellant: Thomas W. Rynard, Thomas J. Daly and Ward K. Brown Counsel for Respondent: James B. Jackson and Joseph R. Borish Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Ulrich, C.J., P.J., Hanna and Smith, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER The Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City, Missouri (TIF), appeals the trial court's judgment following a jury trial in favor of Heimann Brothers Services, Inc. (Heimann Brothers) for $325,000 in this condemnation action. TIF claims the trial court committed four errors. The first two alleged errors concern the trial court's prohibiting TIF from discussing condemnation proceedings in voir dire or in opening statement. In its third claim of error TIF asserts that the trial court should have ordered a new trial because defense counsel, as well as Heimann Brothers, intentionally made false statements during trial. Lastly, TIF contends that it was prejudiced by Heimann Brothers's improper testimony on damages and, therefore, should have been allowed to introduce contrary evidence that Heimann Brothers did not incur "loss of use" damages. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion:
None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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