Filtered slip opinions

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and declared Senate Bill 22 unconstitutional, finding it violated the Missouri Constitution's original purpose requirement. The court invalidated SB 22 in its entirety, determining that the bill's scope expanded far beyond its original stated purpose of amending ballot summary procedures to include unrelated provisions regarding judicial appeals.

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 defendant was convicted of first-degree rape and second-degree burglary. The appellate court affirmed the rape conviction but reversed the burglary conviction due to plain error in the jury instruction regarding second-degree burglary.

The court affirmed the defendant's conviction on two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant applied physical force that overcame the victim's reasonable resistance, constituting forcible compulsion. The defendant's arguments that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove forcible compulsion were rejected.

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.

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 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.

Attorney Arensberg was disciplined for knowingly drafting fraudulent loan documents to diminish a client's son's marital estate during divorce proceedings. Rather than the agreed-upon reprimand, the court imposed an indefinite suspension with a six-month waiting period for reinstatement, stayed pending successful completion of one-year probation.

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.

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.

Robinson was convicted of resisting arrest as a class E felony when he fled from arrest on an outstanding warrant for burglary in the first degree. The court affirmed, holding that resisting arrest can be elevated to a felony when the arrest is for a felony offense regardless of whether the arrest is made with or without a warrant.