Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 12, 2026
Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 10, 2026
Father appealed a circuit court judgment renewing a full order of protection against him for Mother, effective for his lifetime. Father contended the evidence was insufficient to justify renewal and that the judgment lacked sufficient findings for a lifetime order. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of stalking to warrant renewal and concluding that Father failed to preserve his claim regarding the sufficiency of findings for appellate review.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 3, 2026
Gregory Stiens, individually and as trustee, appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims, and against Stiens's counterclaims. Stiens challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the property description in the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all points of error raised by Stiens regarding the trial proceedings and outcomes. However, the court remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the judgment to include proper legal descriptions of the disputed property awarded to the Rosenbohms.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 24, 2026
Kathryn Torre-Stewart appealed the dismissal of her claims against Washington University for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding Torre-Stewart failed to plead facts demonstrating a legal disability or sufficient harassment. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, concluding that Torre-Stewart adequately pleaded facts to establish its elements, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Feb 24, 2026
Stacey L. Noble appealed the trial court's amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Bradford R. Noble, challenging the denial of maintenance and an alleged judicial impropriety. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found no judicial impropriety in the trial court's use of an online calculator for judicially noticeable tax rates. The court also affirmed the denial of maintenance, concluding that Husband lacked the ability to pay regardless of the income calculation method, and that maintenance is not mandatory if the paying spouse cannot afford it.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026
Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights for minor children A.L.P. and S.H.P. after Lora Martinez, the children's adoptive parent, was granted parental rights in a separate adoption proceeding. The circuit court granted Smith visitation, and Martinez appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 452.375.5(5)(a) does not create an independent cause of action for third-party custody or visitation when custody is not already at issue in an underlying proceeding, such as a divorce or paternity action. Consequently, Smith's claim for visitation and her subsequent family access motion failed.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026
Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026
Appellant M.D.M. (Father) appealed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, raising six points of error concerning the Form 14 income calculation, Line 11 credit, allocation of guardian ad litem and attorney's fees, and the abatement of child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that Father's failure to preserve issues for appeal subjected all points to plain error review. The court found no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the circuit court's rulings, including its denial of a Line 11 credit due to Father's non-exercise of visitation and its fee awards.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 3, 2026
Arthur and Gayle Daume appealed the trial court's interpretation of a deeded easement for ingress and egress over their neighbors' private roadway. The trial court had construed the easement's "non-commercial purposes" limitation to prohibit agricultural use and restricted its scope to the Daumes and their immediate family. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that "non-commercial" does not categorically prohibit agricultural use unless for profit, and that the appurtenant easement allows the Daumes to authorize third parties for non-commercial ingress and egress.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jan 29, 2026
Emily Omohundro appealed the trial court's approval of a summary statement for an initiative petition seeking to prevent public funds from benefiting nonpublic schools. The appellate court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair because it misleadingly suggested the elimination of aid for disabled students, failed to account for both direct and indirect aid, and incorrectly stated the initiative would "eliminate existing programs." The court reversed the trial court's judgment and certified an alternative summary statement to the Secretary of State.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 23, 2026
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) alleged attorney Brian Todd Goldstein mishandled client funds and engaged in dishonest conduct. Following a de novo review, the Missouri Supreme Court found Goldstein violated Rules 4-1.15(a) (safeguarding of property) and 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Court determined that Goldstein intentionally and repeatedly engaged in misconduct, including diverting client payments to his personal account and misrepresenting firm representation. Consequently, the Court ordered Goldstein disbarred, finding that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors and disbarment was the appropriate baseline discipline.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 23, 2026
Sean Soendker Nicholson sued the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 22, alleging violations of the original purpose, single subject, and clear title provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court found SB 22 constitutional regarding these procedural limitations but unconstitutional on equal protection grounds for one section, which it severed. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement because an amendment granting the attorney general new appeal powers was not germane to the bill's original purpose concerning ballot summaries. The Court further found the offending provision could not be severed, thus invalidating SB 22 in its entirety.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 23, 2026
Colleen Eikmeier and William Love, homeowners in a subdivision, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners' association (HOA) after the legislature enacted a statute proscribing covenants from limiting solar panel installation. The circuit court denied relief, finding the statute could not apply to preexisting covenants. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies to all covenants, including those in existence before its effective date, and that this application does not violate the state constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws or impairment of contracts. The Court also found the HOA's rule prohibiting street-facing solar panels unenforceable as it adversely affected the cost or efficiency of the solar device.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026
EasyEx MO Ofallon, LLC appealed the circuit court's judgment denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in a suit brought by its former employee, Celestina Gamez, for violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that EasyEx failed to file its motion to set aside the default judgment within the one-year time limit prescribed by Rule 74.05(d). The court also granted Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal as a prevailing party under the MHRA and remanded the case for a determination of reasonable fees.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 13, 2026
Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 30, 2025
The State Tax Commission initiated a mandamus action against Jackson County officials, seeking to compel compliance with its order to alter 2023 property tax assessments. The trial court dismissed the action, finding it barred by res judicata due to a prior voluntarily dismissed lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the current mandamus action was based on new ultimate facts—the County's refusal to comply with the Commission's August 6 Order—which arose after the dismissal of the first case, thus precluding the application of res judicata.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 30, 2025
P.W.R., Jr. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to B.W.R. (Son), arguing the trial court failed to make required statutory findings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that Father's claim of error, which pertained to the form or language of the judgment, was not preserved for appellate review because he failed to file a motion to amend the judgment as mandated by Rule 78.07(c).
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 23, 2025
Karla Allsberry, a former circuit clerk, sued Judge Patrick Flynn and his secretary Kathy Hall for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Circuit Court of Lincoln County (CCLC) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment on defamation, directed verdicts on the MHRA claims, and a jury verdict for Flynn on IIED. The appellate court affirmed all judgments, finding no evidence of actual malice for defamation, that the State of Missouri (not CCLC) was Allsberry's employer for MHRA purposes, and that the jury instruction on IIED's "sole purpose" element was a correct statement of law. It also found Allsberry's claims of trial error regarding attorney misconduct were not preserved.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 23, 2025
Missouri Medical Options, LLC (MMO) appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment against the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). MMO sought to invalidate rescinded medical marijuana cultivation regulations and compel license issuance. The circuit court dismissed the petition as moot, finding no existing controversy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a challenge to regulations already rescinded is moot, as a judgment would have no practical effect and effectual relief is impossible.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025
S.C., who had previously pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor in Indiana, registered with Missouri's sex offender registry after moving to the state. He later filed a petition seeking a declaration of exemption from the registry and an order for removal of his name. The trial court granted his petition, finding him exempt and ordering removal. The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol appealed, arguing S.C. was not exempt and that removal was beyond the court's statutory authority. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that S.C.'s Indiana crimes did not meet Missouri's child abuse criteria for mandatory registration, and that an exempt person could have their name removed from the registry.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025
Billy Wagner appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had applied the incorrect version of Rule 29.15(g) to determine the deadline for filing an amended motion and failed to adjudicate all claims in Wagner's pro se motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at sentencing governs and that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025
Vance Clark appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing his petition against Benjamin Aranda for failure to state a claim. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Clark, who represented himself, failed to substantially comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04 of the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, his brief contained a deficient statement of facts and improperly structured points relied on, which prevented the court from conducting a meaningful review without acting as his advocate.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 16, 2025
Cody Enderle, as guardian and conservator for his father Charles Enderle, sued Richard Gercken and Gercken Kelsey L.L.C. to void a real estate transaction, alleging Charles lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced, and the terms were unconscionable. The circuit court directed a verdict on the undue influence claim, a jury found Charles had contractual capacity, and the court ruled against unconscionability and granted Gercken's counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions, or the court's rulings on unconscionability and evidence.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 16, 2025
Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin sued the City of Kearney for inverse condemnation, alleging soil erosion in their backyards due to the City's stormwater drainage system. The circuit court granted a directed verdict against Laughlin, finding no notice to the City of erosion on his property, but a jury found for the Davises and Kamms. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that Laughlin failed to prove notice, and that the Davises and Kamms properly sought damages for a partial taking, not a total taking, which was supported by the evidence. The court also affirmed its appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments regarding judgment finality and timely appeal.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 16, 2025
George Miller appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to quash a garnishment filed by the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) to enforce a tax lien. Miller argued the tax lien was unenforceable because it was more than ten years old and had not been refiled or revived. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a certificate of tax lien filed with the circuit clerk under Section 143.902.1(2) has the full force and effect of a default judgment for enforcement purposes and is thus subject to the ten-year statute of limitations in Section 516.350.1. The court further held that applying this statute of limitations does not violate the Missouri Constitution as it only extinguishes the remedy under that specific provision, not the underlying tax debt.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 9, 2025
Deborah S. Starke (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James A. Starke (Husband), specifically challenging the order to convey marital real estate to a third-party trust. The Wife contended that the trial court erred by ordering the conveyance of marital property to a non-party to the dissolution action, which violates Missouri law. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025
Michael F. Shanahan, Jr. sued Spencer Fane LLP, alleging legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent nondisclosure related to his investment in a car dealership. Shanahan claimed Spencer Fane misrepresented his GM approval status and failed to disclose his lack of approval. The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer Fane on all claims, which Shanahan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Shanahan failed to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship, an affirmative misrepresentation, or a duty to speak.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025
Roland Hill, Jr. appealed the trial court's judgment confirming a sheriff's sale of a property due to delinquent tax liens. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Hill's notice of appeal was untimely filed beyond the twenty-day statutory deadline set by section 92.845. The court held that this statutory timeframe controls over the general forty-day period in the Rules of Civil Procedure and that it lacked authority to grant leave for a late appeal as the six-month window had expired.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 2, 2025
The City of Jefferson, Missouri, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its claims against various telecommunication companies for delinquent business license taxes, violations of section 392.350, declaratory judgment, and accounting. The City argued the circuit court erred in interpreting the "limitation for bringing suit" in section 71.625.2, dismissing its section 392.350 and declaratory judgment claims as derivative or having an adequate legal remedy, and dismissing its accounting claims. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgments, holding that the City failed to comply with statutory assessment and notice requirements for tax collection, lacked standing under section 392.350, and had adequate remedies at law for its declaratory judgment and accounting claims.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 2, 2025
Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.