William R. Bonner, D.O., Petitioner/Respondent v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, Respondent/Appellant.
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.
Syllabus
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: William R. Bonner, D.O., Petitioner/Respondent v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, Respondent/Appellant. Case Number: 25737 Handdown Date: 07/21/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cedar County, Hon. Joseph B. Phillips Counsel for Appellant: William E. Roberts Counsel for Respondent: Craig R. Heidemann Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion:
PER CURIAM . The judgment on appeal concerns action by the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts
("Board") against William R. Bonner, D.O. ("Dr. Bonner"). During the pendency of this case on appeal, the parties "entered into a written settlement agreement[]" and [a]s a term of the parties' settlement . . . , the parties have agreed that this Court should vacate the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss Dr. Bonner's petition." Because it appears that the parties, by settling their disputes, have mooted this appeal, we exercise our discretion to vacate the judgment and remand with instructions as requested by the parties. In doing so, we rely heavily on Chastain v. City of Kansas City, 968 S.W.2d 232 (Mo.App. 1998), which held as follows: "While we . . . decline to declare a 'bright line' rule as to vacatur, we conclude that the normal practice should be to vacate the judgment when one or more parties requests such action in a case moot on appeal. . . . This power has been
recognized in Missouri law going back to at least as early as Neenan v. City of St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 89, 28 S.W. 963, 965 (1894). This is consistent with the modern majority rule." Id. at 243. Having concluded that this case is moot and does not fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, this court, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, dismisses the appeal and remands the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate its judgment and dismiss Dr. Bonner's petition.
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450