Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 10, 2026
James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of "driving" for IRTOs.
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.
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 / Dec 29, 2025
The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline filed findings and recommendations against Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill for judicial misconduct, including inappropriate courtroom behavior, political activity from the bench, and an improper character reference. Judge Thornhill waived his right to a hearing and admitted the charges. The Commission recommended a six-month suspension followed by an 18-month return to service and then resignation. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected this recommendation, finding that Judge Thornhill's political activity in the courtroom alone warranted his immediate removal from office.
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
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, 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, 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 2, 2025
Barry E. Anderson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court had found abandonment by counsel and reviewed his untimely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the amended motion was untimely because the abandonment doctrine does not apply to unappointed counsel, and the motion court's post hoc appointment was invalid. However, the court affirmed the judgment because all claims in Anderson's timely pro se motion had been properly adjudicated.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 18, 2025
Appellants Oak Ridge Property Management, LLC, and WCMD, LLC, appealed an order granting sanctions against them. They argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they filed a voluntary dismissal, and that the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction, finding the initial dismissal ineffective due to improper signature and that an amended dismissal could not relate back. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the merits of the sanctions order, holding that an order for sanctions is not a final, appealable judgment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 18, 2025
Bradley Hult, a registered nurse, was permanently placed on the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services' Employee Disqualification List after being found to have knowingly neglected a patient and falsified records. The circuit court affirmed Hult's placement but reduced the duration to eighteen months, finding the permanent placement arbitrary. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in part, upholding Hult's placement on the list, and reversed in part, reinstating the Department's decision for permanent placement, concluding it was not arbitrary or capricious.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 12, 2025
David Love appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for making gang references during voir dire, failing to include a limiting instruction for prior bad acts in jury instructions, and failing to quash the jury panel due to a fair cross-section violation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that while his amended motion was untimely and counsel abandoned him, remand was unnecessary, and Love failed to prove his ineffective assistance claims.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Nov 4, 2025
Marcus Raichle and the Maune Raichle Law Firm appealed the circuit court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against the Estate of Neil J. Maune. The dispute arose from the distribution of life insurance proceeds after Neil Maune's death, with the Estate claiming the funds should have gone to a different entity. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that under Missouri's aggregate theory of partnerships, Maune and Raichle's individual signatures on the operating agreement bound their general partnership to arbitrate. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to sustain the motion to compel arbitration, deferring questions of arbitration scope to the arbitrator.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 4, 2025
Savannah Radmer appealed a judgment awarding her damages and attorney fees from her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, on claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. She challenged the reduction of her damages award and the constitutionality of a damages cap. MDOC cross-appealed several issues, including jury instructions and punitive damages. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals, concluding that the circuit court's judgment was not final due to its failure to rule on Radmer's requests for prejudgment interest and equitable relief.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 21, 2025
Clay Chastain appealed pro se from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and its officials, in a case alleging malicious arrest, malicious prosecution, and election interference. The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The dismissal was based on Chastain's brief substantially failing to comply with numerous mandatory provisions of Rule 84.04, despite having been warned of deficiencies in an earlier filing.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Oct 14, 2025
The City of Creve Coeur appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DirecTV, LLC, and other streaming service providers. Creve Coeur sought Video Service Provider (VSP) fees, arguing the providers fell under the Video Service Provider Act (VSPA) and were unjustly enriched. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a 2024 amendment to VSPA clarified its original meaning, excluding streaming content, thus no VSP fees were owed and no constitutional violation occurred, nor was there a basis for unjust enrichment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Sep 30, 2025
Howard Kristopher Moots appealed his convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the circuit court's written judgment incorrectly stated his sentence as "999 years" when the oral pronouncement was "life in prison." The State conceded the error. The appellate court remanded the case to the circuit court to enter a corrected written judgment reflecting the oral pronouncement of life in prison for the statutory sodomy counts, affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 23, 2025
Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 9, 2025
Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Aug 26, 2025
Temujin Kensu filed a class action against Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., alleging breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to a digital music service for prisoners. The trial court granted class certification for these claims, but Keefe Commissary appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification but reversed and remanded the case due to an improperly defined class that included a determination of the merits.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Aug 26, 2025
Rayne Littlefield sued the Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for VFW, finding it exempt from the MHRA as a bona fide private membership club. On appeal, Littlefield argued that VFW's public events and advertising negated its exempt status. The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that VFW's public activities do not, by themselves, alter its status as a bona fide private membership club, thus exempting it from MHRA liability.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Aug 12, 2025
The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, which partially enjoined certain abortion-related state statutes and regulations at the request of Planned Parenthood. The Missouri Supreme Court determined it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that an appeal from a preliminary injunction, where the circuit court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes, does not invoke its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jul 29, 2025
Father D.Z. appealed the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, D.J.Z., based on grounds of abuse and neglect, including a mental condition, severe physical abuse, and failure to protect the child. Father challenged the denial of his motion to reopen evidence, alleged failure to provide a social study, the findings of abuse and neglect, and the determination that termination was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on any of Father's seven points on appeal.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jul 22, 2025
Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, appealed a summary judgment that allowed both a county and an incorporated city within that county to impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sales. Robust, operating in Florissant, argued that only one "local government" could impose the tax based on the area's incorporation status. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the constitutional definition of "local government" permits either a village, town, or city to impose the tax in an incorporated area, or a county to do so in an unincorporated area, but not both simultaneously in an incorporated area. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Robust.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jul 22, 2025
In this original attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Ryan Christopher McCarty disclosed confidential client information after his termination from the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD), his former client. McCarty argued his disclosures were required or protected by the First Amendment and Missouri's whistleblowing statute. The Missouri Supreme Court found McCarty violated Rules 4-1.9(c)(1) and 4-1.9(c)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rejecting his defenses. The Court suspended McCarty's license to practice law indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jul 22, 2025
Christopher A. Scott appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at Scott's sentencing date governed his proceedings, making his public defender's amended motion untimely. The Court further clarified that the abandonment doctrine, which could excuse untimely filings, applies only to formally appointed counsel, which Scott's public defender was not.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jul 22, 2025
C.S. appealed the denial of his amended petition to expunge a conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, specifically possessing a firearm while knowingly in possession of a controlled substance. He argued this was a "marijuana offense" eligible for expungement under Missouri's Amendment 3. The circuit court had expunged his marijuana possession conviction but denied expungement for the weapon charge. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unlawful use of a weapon offense is not a "marijuana offense" for expungement purposes, as its primary purpose is to prohibit conduct that endangers others, which is not limited by the constitutional expungement provision.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jul 22, 2025
Jessie Nelson and Cameron Woods appealed the overruling of their respective amended motions for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The Missouri Supreme Court found that appointed counsel for both movants had abandoned them by filing untimely amended motions due to miscalculating the deadlines. However, the Court affirmed the motion courts' judgments, concluding that remand for an abandonment inquiry was unnecessary given the clear record of abandonment, and that the motion courts did not clearly err in denying the ineffective assistance claims on their merits after evidentiary hearings.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jul 15, 2025
Richard Hershey sued the Curators of the University of Missouri and four individual employees, alleging violations of the Campus Free Expression Act (CFEA). The circuit court dismissed claims against the individual defendants and granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the CFEA does not authorize a cause of action against individuals in their individual capacities and that Hershey's appellate brief failed to properly challenge the summary judgment by not connecting arguments to the summary judgment record.