Filtered slip opinions

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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.

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

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.

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.

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act because she failed to plead facts demonstrating legal disability or a hostile work environment based on disability. However, the court reversed and remanded the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing the elements of retaliation under the Act based on her complaints of disability discrimination.

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief where appellant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to investigate his mental state. The appellant failed to establish how additional mental state information would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice requirement for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

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.

Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to allow him to testify and failed to investigate and call two witnesses. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief, finding that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.

Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine found in the vehicle he was driving, arguing insufficient evidence of knowing possession. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence supported the guilty verdict based on the methamphetamine discovered in the driver's side dashboard cubby within reach of the driver's seat.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding that Ferguson failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to call witnesses in his favor. The court concluded that Ferguson did not proffer the names of any viable defense witnesses and that witness selection constitutes trial strategy.

Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging both the sufficiency of evidence and the legality of the vehicle stop that led to the firearm's discovery. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, upholding the conviction and rejection of Rogers's motion to suppress.

David K. Duncan, Sr. was convicted of three counts of first-degree statutory rape and six counts of second-degree child molestation of his granddaughter. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Duncan's statement to the victim that he had sex with his wife at the same age as the victim, ruling this was logically and legally relevant and not improper propensity evidence.

This Missouri appellate case addressed whether a company could set aside a default judgment that was entered against it more than one year earlier in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Celestina Gamez sued her former employer, EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, claiming violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. After EasyEx was properly served but failed to respond, the trial court entered a default judgment in March 2024 awarding Gamez damages and attorney's fees. EasyEx did not attempt to challenge this judgment until April 2025—over one year later—when Gamez began collection efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of EasyEx's motion to set aside the default judgment. Under Missouri Rule 74.05(d), parties seeking to overturn a default judgment must act "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment." The court rejected EasyEx's argument that the one-year deadline should run from when they received notice of the judgment rather than when it was entered, emphasizing that defaulting parties forfeit their right to notice under Missouri law. The court also awarded Gamez attorney's fees for defending the appeal, since she was the prevailing party under the Missouri Human Rights Act. This decision reinforces that Missouri's one-year deadline for challenging default judgments is strictly enforced and cannot be extended based on claims of lack of notice. For businesses and other litigants, this case underscores the critical importance of maintaining current contact information with registered agents and monitoring for potential lawsuits. Once a default judgment is entered, parties have limited time to act, and waiting until collection efforts begin is likely too late to seek relief from the court.

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld section 577.023.2, which allows circuit courts rather than juries to determine whether prior DWI convictions occurred on separate occasions for purposes of charging a persistent offender felony. The court rejected the defendant's argument that this procedure facially violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, finding the statute constitutional and that the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the felony charge.

The court upheld the constitutionality of Missouri's SAFE Act and Medicaid ban, which prohibit gender transition medical treatments for minors. Challengers failed to demonstrate that these statutes violate due process, equal protection, or the gains of industry clause provisions of the Missouri Constitution.

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for Harry Little's convictions for murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Trial counsel's decisions not to call an alibi witness and not to argue a specific alternative perpetrator in closing argument constituted reasonable trial strategy rather than ineffective assistance of counsel.

Craig Wood appealed the overruling of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief challenging his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the 2014 abduction and murder of 10-year-old Hailey Owens. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel or other grounds for postconviction relief warranting reversal of Wood's conviction and sentence.