Case summaries for Oct. 3-9, 2025

ADR | Civil | Criminal | Juvenile | Local government | Personal injury

ADR

Arbitration waived 
The parties’ contract included an arbitration clause, but arbitration was subject to waiver by conduct inconsistent with arbitration. Appellant defendant waived arbitration by going to trial and failing to raise arbitration until after judgment. The appellant was “charged with knowledge of what she signed, and she is deemed to have understood the meaning of the word ‘arbitration.’” Appellate courts had authority over final judgments. When a judgment explicitly disposed of one issue as to all parties, and that disposition implicitly disposed of all other issues as to all parties, the judgment was final. So when the plaintiff pleaded alternative and mutually exclusive claims for relief from a single harm, and the circuit court granted it relief on one, it implicitly denied the others. The circuit court granted relief for breach of contract, implicitly denying claims in quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, and rendering the judgment final. 
(Overview summary) 
Como Premium Construction LLC, D/B/A Como Premium vs. Erin L. Pulster 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87585

Civil

Inability to pay fees not shown 
Circuit courts could not penalize a party for failure to pay fees when unable to pay fees as determined by certification filed with the circuit clerk by counsel retained through a legal aid entity. Regulations of the Family Support Division for its own determinations of child support did not govern the circuit court’s judgment. All other points on appeal were inadequately briefed to a degree that an appellate court could not rule on them without becoming an advocate for the appellant. 
(Overview summary) 
In RE the Marriage of: Nathan Goodpasture vs. Sandy Goodpasture 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87412

Summary judgment affidavit showed first-hand knowledge 
Affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment had to show that the affiant’s testimony stood on personal knowledge. Objections not raised in circuit court were not preserved for appellate courts. The Fair Credit Reporting Act required prospective employers to give certain notices to prospective employees about prospective employers’ possible use of credit reports on prospective employees when making hiring decisions. As to that matter, an affiant’s statements of personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit were sufficient. A response to a motion for summary judgment had to raise a genuine dispute as to a material fact, and attach any supporting exhibits, to become part of the summary judgment record or be disregarded on appellate review. The circuit court’s summary judgment showed that it was on the merits and not on any issue of justiciability. 
(Overview summary) 
Hernandez Campbell vs. Adecco USA, INC. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87399

Counter-claim time-barred 
The parties filed a claim and a counter-claim, each constituting an action on account. An action on account was an action in contract for each of a series of transactions that left a balance due and, if none of such transactions involved a written promise to pay money, the time to file a claim was five years. The defendant’s evidence showed amounts due the defendant more than five years before the defendant filed the counter-claim. That amount was due the defendant, the circuit court found. But the evidence did not show, and the circuit court did not find, any transaction within five years of when the defendant filed the counter-claim. “While we defer to the trial court’s factual finding, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of law to the facts.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, reversed the judgment for the defendant, and remanded the action to circuit court for a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff only. 
WAYNE MORELOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BURRITO CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38667

Criminal

No amending judgment after sentencing 
Imposing and announcing sentence in the defendant’s sentence ended the circuit court’s authority, except to memorialize the sentence as spoken, even with the parties’ agreement otherwise. At the sentencing hearing, the parties agreed to 30 days more for a memorandum on restitution, and the circuit court imposed a sentence of confinement. On receipt of the memorandum, the circuit court ordered restitution, but the imposition of sentence had already ended the circuit court’s authority, so the order of restitution was void. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Cody Boehmer 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87379

Conviction for resisting a stop by fleeing affirmed 
The elements of class E felony resisting a lawful stop by fleeing included a substantial risk of serious physical injury. That element had support in the record, because the state introduced evidence that the defendant drove through a stop sign and passed three vehicles at 100 miles per hour, and that such speed could have killed someone. “[T]he fact no one was actually injured or killed during the high-speed pursuit” did not negate the jury’s conclusion. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Cody Lee Kiser 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87073

Closing arguments okay 
The state’s argument that an acquittal meant “open season” was not improperly personalized. Closing argument could include reasonable inferences from the evidence. The state’s expert did not draw any conclusion as to which of the defendant’s multiple shots struck the victim first but the state’s closing argument drew inferences as to which shot was first. The state defense did not object and the circuit court did not intervene sua sponte. Circuit court intervention sua sponte in closing argument could constitute error, so non-intervention was rarely error, and this was no exception. Also, which shot happened first was not related to any element of first-degree murder. Because the defendant showed neither error nor any resulting manifest injustice, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. The written sentence of 999 years for armed criminal action varied from the spoken sentence of three years so the Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for an order correcting the judgment nunc pro tunc. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL LEE CREEKMORE, Defendant- Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38662

Possession shown 
The elements of class C felony delivery of a controlled substance included possession, meaning at least “access to and control of the premises where” law enforcement officers found, a controlled substance. The state showed that element through the defendant’s statement to law enforcement that everything in the house was his. The elements of class D felony endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree included the presence of a child in a residence where the defendant possessed methamphetamine. The state showed that element through the defendant’s statement to law enforcement that children were present in the house with methamphetamine. Verdict director language on joint possession did not cause manifest injustice, considering the evidence of guilt, so no plain error occurred in submitting that language to the jury. The state’s response to the defendant’s closing arguments did not constitute error, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JOSHUA EDWARD DONALD WEBB, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38427

Juvenile

No admissions from disabled juvenile 
“When a constitutional right is violated, a circuit court's failure to follow a statute will warrant plain error review.” Plain error occurred when the circuit court gave effect to an admission not shown on the record to have been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. On multiple pleadings and proceedings, with charges against both appellant juvenile and parent, the juvenile never stated that he committed the offense ultimately charged, or any other, so there was no factual basis for the admission. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Interest of: A.B. vs. Juvenile Officer 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87452

Local government

Redevelopment authority did not show sovereign immunity 
A party without the burden of proof could prevail on summary judgment by establishing facts beyond dispute that negated an element of the claim. The plaintiff’s petition sought to hold the defendants liable for defendants’ respective actions, so the plaintiffs could not raise a theory of agency in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in circuit court or appellate court. The defendants’ promise to cooperate on redevelopment did not constitute a duty to support the plaintiff’s redevelopment efforts. The defendants’ promise to negotiate a further agreement did not constitute a duty to reach an agreement. As to tort actions, sovereign immunity could apply to entities that were “enough like a public entity” in qualities that included public accountability for its activities. The defendant failed to establish such facts, and the record showed the opposite, so the circuit court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Bank of Washington, Appellant, vs. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis, and LCRA Holdings Corporation, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113056

Personal injury

Stock law applied 
The Stock Law provided that the animals’ owners were liability for injuries caused by the owners’ animals outside their enclosure, unless the owner was not negligent, so the absence of owner negligence was an affirmative defense. The defendant supported that affirmative defense with evidence on the condition of the fence and animal behavior. Objecting four times to evidence offered nine times did not preserve the objection. No prejudice occurred from admitting evidence that appellant also elicited. No prejudice occurred from the exclusion of photographs showing the fence’s condition when the circuit court admitted other evidence on the same matter. 
(Overview summary) 
Daniel Brothers, Appellant, v. Edward James Becker, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112609