Case summaries for Dec. 19-31, 2025

Administrative | ADR | Appellate | Attorneys | Civil | Contract | Corporations and other legal entities | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Insurance | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Post-conviction relief | Real estate

Administrative

No licensing by declaratory judgment
Courts generally did not hear actions in which no practical relief was possible. While the application was before the Administrative Hearing Commission, the respondent licensing agency rescinded the substantive regulations on which it had denied the appellant applicant’s license application, and the applicant filed a declaratory judgment action. The action sought a declaration that the rescinded regulations were invalid and no basis for denial, but rescission mooted such declaration. Arguments and rulings not made in circuit court were not subject to appeal. The circuit court dismissed the action as moot and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Missouri Medical Options, LLC, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113472

Deadline started with notification as defined by regulation
A petition alleging facts that did not describe a legal basis for relief was subject to dismissal. The petitioner sought relief from a decision of the Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board but missed the deadline by which such a petition had to be filed. Filing had to occur within a set time from notification. Notification had a definition by regulation, as authorized by statute, and by Supreme Court rule. Notification was not subject to the petitioner’s decision on when to review a notice. “[A] plaintiff cannot plead legal conclusions as ultimate facts to survive a motion to dismiss.” The circuit court could take all the petition’s allegations as true, apply the law, and dismiss the petition for petitioner’s failure to secure the circuit court’s authority. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
(Overview summary)
Virginia L. Graham vs. Missouri Dept. of Social Services
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87772 consolidated with WD87839

ADR

Enforcement of settlements distinguished from settled actions
Motions to enforce settlement constituted actions collateral to actions settled. Settlement agreements were subject to specific performance and the appellant was a party to a settlement agreement. So, even if the settled action had not named the appellant, the appellant was subject to judgment enforcing the settlement agreement. The circuit court found facts in accordance with the appellant’s “express position,” so any error constituted invited error on appellate courts would not reverse a judgment. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment enforcing the settlement and remanded the action for a determination of attorney fees and costs.
(Overview summary)
Rebecca Vollmer vs. Hicks Enrichment Resource Outreach Enlightenment Services, LLC, d/b/a H.E.R.O.E.S and Florence Rainey-Hicks
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87747

Settlement enforced
When the appellant’s theory on appeal was the absence of substantial evidence to support a judgment, appellate courts considered only evidence supporting the judgment, and did not consider evidence favoring appellant. The appellant had the burden in circuit court to show by “clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence” that a claim settled. A settlement existed because the movants tendered payment in the amount and in the manner respondents demanded.
(Overview summary)
Karen E. Spalding, Deborah K. Thelen, and Cynthia M. Parazak, Appellants, v. Kimberly Agnes Martin and Gary Thomas Martin, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113426

Appellate

Deficient brief required dismissal
Rules governing the appellant’s brief protected “judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties.” Failure to comply with those rules threatened those values and could support dismissal. The statement of facts had to favor the judgment, give a complete procedural background, and refer to the record. Points relied on had to challenge a ruling made and the grounds for such ruling. Failing to meet those requirements barred review without constructing arguments for the appellant, which it could not do, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Rachel Whitehead vs. Zackery Todd Moore Jr.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87588

No motion to amend, no preservation
The circuit court’s failure to make statutorily required findings of fact constituted error. To preserve such error, the appellant had to raise that error to the circuit court in a motion to amend. The appellant filed no motion to amend and so failed to preserve the error.   
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of: B.W.R., Juvenile, P.W.R., Jr. vs. Juvenile Officer
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87907

Attorneys

"Elvis" judge removed for politicking from the bench
The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline found facts and determined whether judges were subject to discipline, and recommended a degree of discipline. Only the Supreme Court of Missouri decided what the discipline would be. The record refuted the respondent circuit judge’s allegations of commission misconduct. The Supreme Court of Missouri rejected the resolution negotiated between the commission and the respondent circuit judge. “Either [the respondent] is fit to serve or he is not.” The latter was the case. Offering uncompelled evidence in a circuit court action and dressing like Elvis Presley in court merited discipline. Political activity from the bench was “more than sufficient” for removal. The Supreme Court of Missouri removed respondent, effective immediately, and entertained no post-disposition motions.  
(Overview summary)
In re: The Honorable Matthew E.P. Thornhill, Respondent
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101374

Civil

No identity of claim, no res judicata
The doctrine of res judicata precluded any later claim that was identical to an earlier claim. “A claim is the aggregate of operative facts giving rise to a right enforceable by a court[,]” including any related allegations or theories, but not any new facts arising since the earlier claim. In an earlier action for a writ of mandamus, relator State Tax Commission claimed that respondent county had assessed real property by unlawful procedure. Then the relator issued an order requiring the respondent to assess real property according to lawful procedure. In a later action for writ of mandamus, the relator claimed that the respondent failed to comply with that order. Failure to comply with the order was not at issue in the earlier action, so the claims were not identical, and the circuit court erred in dismissing the later claim under res judicata.  
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87831

Contract

10-year statute of limitations applied
The time for filing contract actions could be five years generally for “contracts, obligations or liabilities, express or implied, except those” subject to the 10-year limit for “any writing … for the payment of money or property[.]” The latter applied to the plaintiff’s actions for breach of contract, suit on account, and unjust enrichment seeking unpaid bills under a written contract, and the former applied to the co-plaintiff who had no such written contract with the defendant. The co-plaintiff’s separate corporate existence, operation, services to the defendant, and billing supported application of “[t]he general rule of privity [that] is intended to protect contractual parties from obligations they have not voluntarily assumed, and thus a third party cannot acquire rights arising under a contract to which he or she is not a party.” The circuit court failed to apply the correct statute of limitations and erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims of the co-plaintiff. That motion could raise the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense waived if not pled, because the face of the petition alleged facts that showed how the statute applied.
(Overview summary)
Midwest Neurosurgeons, LLC, and Midwest Surgery Center, LLC, Respondents, v. Simon John Cort, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113376

Corporations and other legal entities

Dissolution of partnership affirmed
Circuit courts had “absolute discretion as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony is a matter for the [circuit] court, and its findings on witness credibility are never reviewable by the appellate court.” Partnerships not subject to a partnership agreement were subject to statutes. Statutes provided that, on dissolution of a partnership, partners were due profits and losses in equal measure, and their capital contributions with interest on contributions greater than initially agreed, but only if in aid of the partnership. That did not apply to the appellant partners who, the circuit court found, had misused partnership assets for personal purposes. The appellants challenged those findings of fact, and the distribution of equity, as contrary to the weight of the evidence. That challenge required the appellants to explain why the evidence favoring the finding did not really support the finding. But the appellants’ point relied on did not challenge those findings. The appellants’ arguments challenged the findings not cited in the point relied on and was multifarious, and referred only to evidence contrary to the findings, not the “overwhelming” evidence supporting the findings. That was especially true when the appellants failed to offer reliable records. The appellants did not show any impropriety in the use of partnership assets in the litigation. The appellants did not support their challenges to the findings, so the appellants did not show that the circuit court misapplied the law when denying interest to the appellants.
(Overview summary)
Distler Brothers Farm PTR, Betty Distler, Doug Distler, and Beau Distler, Personal Representative for the Estate of Philip J. Distler vs. Donald and Jill Distler
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87741

Criminal

Probable cause supported warrant for STD test
The United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment required searches and seizures to have support in an affidavit showing that finding evidence of a crime was a fair probability. Fair probability could have support in reliable hearsay as shown by details corroborating the declarant’s statements as relayed by affiant to the issuing judge. The issuing judge did not err in finding probable cause. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the circuit court’s order quashing the warrant.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101178

Plain error review described, no prejudice from variance
Plain error review was available when the appellant alleged an obvious error that affected a basic right, leading to a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice if uncorrected. Even then, plain error review was discretionary based on factors including the suitability of a claim for plain error review. The appellant charged error in an instruction that substituted “at” with “into.” That error was not obvious. And “To shoot ‘into’ something, one must also necessarily shoot ‘at’ that same thing, [so] the jury could not have found [that the appellant] shot ‘into’ the vehicle without shooting ‘at’ that same vehicle.” The Supreme Court of Missouri declined plain error review and affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isis S. Jones, Appellant
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101104

Felon shown to be in possession of a firearm
The elements of unlawful use of a weapon by being a felon in possession included possession. Possession could be actual or constructive, and sole or joint, and was subject to proof by circumstantial evidence including easy reach and convenient control. The firearm was under the car seat, with handle and magazine protruding, in which the defendant was sitting. That evidence supported a finding of actual possession. Other occupants’ lesser access did not negate the defendant’s access. The defendant’s flight from arresting officers also showed consciousness of guilt.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113150

Bail mandated
Writs of mandamus issued only to compel ministerial duties, duties as to which there was no discretion in the method of execution. The criminal defendants had a constitutional right to bail in all cases, except capital murder, on relevant conditions including a “bond to secure the appearance of the defendant at the trial” and to protect crime victims. “The Supreme Court of Missouri has made clear, ‘[b]ail is not to be used as a means of punishment.’” The relator was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the second degree and subject to no allegations describing a flight risk or threat to public safety. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of mandamus and directed the circuit court to “conduct a bond hearing immediately” and set conditions including a bond accordingly.  
(Overview summary)
Richard Holden, Relator, v. The Honorable Timothy Miller, Associate Circuit Judge, 23rd Judicial Circuit, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED114079

Plain error review declined, not waived
Plain error review was not subject to waiver but was the appellate courts’ to grant or deny as an exercise of discretion depending on the facts. The appellant sought plain error review of the circuit court’s failure to tender an instruction an instruction curative of a misstatement of law in the State’s closing argument. But the appellant did not seek any remedy nor object to the misstatement. The appellant also sought plain error review of the circuit court’s failure to give a self-defense instruction. The appellant offered substantial evidence supporting self-defense, but relied on a trial strategy inconsistent with self-defense, and declined opportunities to seek a self-defense instruction. Those events could have been reasonable trial strategy, which was rarely suitable for plain error review. The Supreme Court of Missouri declined plain error review and affirmed appellant’s convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard Neil Burkett, Appellant
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101071

Jury findings on prior and persistent status
When the defendant argued that bond violations were related to a mere change of address, the defendant opened the door to rebuttal evidence of other bond violations. Evidence of escape was not conclusive of, but was admissible to show, consciousness of guilt. That applied to the defendant’s severance of his ankle monitor. Reversal based on erroneous evidentiary rulings possible only if outcome-determinative, which the defendant did not show as to various evidence related to firearms, because of other “weighty and material evidence” of guilt. The defendant waived any error in the instructions on voluntary manslaughter by proffering them; invited error waived even plain error review. The defendant had the right to jury determinations on prior and persistent offender status but “reliev[ed] the jury from making this finding and waiv[ed]” plain error review by admitting to that status in a pre-trial conference.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark R. Perry, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113016

Imperfect self-defense instruction discussed
When the circuit court learned that a juror described self-defense as double-talk, the circuit court investigated and determined that no pre-judgment had occurred. “[W]e agree fully with the trial court’s handling.” The rule against hearsay barred out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter stated. Out-of-court statements not offered for the truth of the matter stated were not hearsay, like an exhortation directing the defendant to deploy a firearm. Imperfect self-defense’s elements included "an unreasonable belief that the [defendant’s] conduct was necessary to save his own life.” On a charge of murder in the first degree, the theory of imperfect self-defense negated the mental state of premeditation and showed a mental state of recklessness, supporting an instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. The circuit court did not err in submitting the approved instruction for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree and refusing the defendant’s non-approved instruction for recklessness. In any event, recklessness was inapplicable when the jury found that defendant acted knowingly by committing murder in the second degree.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Emonne W. Dillon, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112946

No ex post facto problem when changing parole eligibility
Constitutional provisions barred ex post facto application of laws: laws increasing criminal punishment for conduct for past conduct. That did not describe a statutory amendment governing parole because parole remained discretionary, so any conceivable harm to the plaintiff inmate was speculative. The circuit court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings for defendant Missouri Department of Corrections.
(Overview summary)
Maurice R. Charles vs. Department of Corrections
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87655

Evidence

Expert testimony was not hearsay
The rule against hearsay generally barred “any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value.” It did not bar an expert from using medical records to form and testify to the expert’s opinion. The foundation for an expert’s testimony required the use of data ordinarily relied on by such experts. “[A]s long as the testifying expert does not discuss the absent expert’s opinions or conclusions, and the absent expert’s report is not admitted into evidence – neither of which occurred here – such testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause, either[,]” so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. No one offered the medical records, and the expert declared the opinion in court, not out of court. The circuit court did not commit plain error by failing to intervene sua sponte and exclude the expert’s testimony.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. HUNTER KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38647

Family

One basis for termination of parental rights was enough
Arguments not raised in a point relied on were abandoned and rulings not shown in the record were no basis for reversal. A single statutory basis was sufficient to terminate the appellant parent’s parental rights if termination was in the child’s best interests. Any challenge to the circuit court’s findings had to appear in a motion to amend judgment. Even if the parent had met that requirement, the parent would still lose on appeal because clear, cogent, and convincing evidence showed that the children were under the juvenile division’s authority for the appellant parent’s neglect during the last year and that the neglect — caused by drug addiction — continued with no improvement likely. No additional or alternative findings were necessary. The same evidence preponderated in favor of a conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interest.
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of: S.K.J., A.L.L., A.L.L., and A.L., Juveniles; and Juvenile Officer vs. J.B. defendant and A.L.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87944 consolidated with WD88052, WD88053, and WD88054

Insurance

Uninsured motorist exclusion applied
The Missouri Financial Responsibility Law required motorists to have minimum coverages and required automobile insurers to provide coverage substituting for the coverage a defendant should have had but did not. The law also allowed stacking with limitations to the minimum coverage. That limitation was not ambiguous when read with a standard integration clause nor with the policies’ declaration pages. “Declarations pages contained within insurance policies do not grant any coverage, as they are introductory and merely summarize the essential terms of the policy.” The declaration pages were also unambiguous in defining “your car” as one named vehicle per respective policy.
(Overview summary)
Mandie Brown, Appellant, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113169

Personal injury

Actual malice discussed
Summary judgment was due a defendant who established facts beyond genuine dispute negating any one element of the plaintiff’s theory. The appellant plaintiff’s theory was defamation, and the plaintiff was an elected official, so the plaintiff had to show actual malice. Actual malice meant a false statement made with at least reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement when the defendant made the statement. “Proof of falsity is not proof of malice.” The appellant failed to refer to the record for evidence of actual malice. The Human Rights Act provided liability for employers, but the defendant was not an employer since the plaintiff’s employer was the State. On a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the elements included the defendant’s sole purpose to cause emotional distress, so a jury instruction requiring such a finding did not misstate the law.
(Overview summary)
Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113270

Untimely filings supported summary judgment
Despite the appellant plaintiff’s failure to comply with briefing rules related to points relied on and argument, the Missouri Court of Appeals could understand the plaintiff’s arguments, and so ruled on them. The defendant could prevail on summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff could not support some element of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim was professional negligence, of which the elements included the defendant’s failure to meet a professional standard, which required expert testimony. No expert could testify in support of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant’s summary judgment motion charged, and the circuit court set the parties’ consented deadline for a response identifying the plaintiff’s expert. A motion to continue an evidentiary hearing did not extend that deadline, and the plaintiff missed the deadline by over four months, so the defendant’s allegations were deemed admitted.
(Overview summary)
Megan Jernigan a/k/a Megan Krause, Appellant, v. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113609

Post-conviction

No promises were made
On a plea of guilty, post-conviction relief was available only if the plea was less than knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Such was the case, the movant alleged, because plea counsel had misadvised the movant that long-term drug treatment was guaranteed. It was not guaranteed, and plea counsel did not advise the movant otherwise, according to the movant at the plea hearing and plea counsel at the evidentiary hearing on the motion.
(Overview summary)
Edward C. Koenig, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113363

Post-conviction relief

Notice was not appointment
Late filing waived all relief with a few exceptions. Exceptions included abandonment by post-relief counsel, but that doctrine applied only to appointed counsel. It did not apply to volunteer counsel even from the public defender’s office. “[T]he motion court’s docket entry in the post-conviction case sent to the public defender’s office only advised the office that [the movant] had filed a pro se post-conviction motion and did not serve as an appointment[.]” Volunteer post-conviction counsel filed an amended motion late, so the circuit court lacked authority to rule on it, and the initial motion was still before the circuit court. Lacking a final judgment, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded the action to the circuit court.
(Overview summary)
Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112275

Hearing required on unrefuted allegations
An evidentiary hearing was necessary when the record did not refute allegations that described a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. The elements of such a claim included substandard performance resulting in prejudice. The movant pled those elements by alleging that the movant entered a guilty plea, in reliance on plea counsel’s misadvice, on sentencing and parole eligibility, which the circuit court failed to correct. The record did not refute those allegations so an evidentiary hearing was due.
(Overview summary)
Deonta Johnson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113384

Real estate

Termination provisions read strictly
Appellate courts affirmed judgments that used the wrong reason to reach a correct result. Actions for unlawful detainer determined only the right to immediate possession. Immediate possession was the right of a tenant under a written lease until termination of the lease. The parties’ lease allowed termination without notice or opportunity to cure when the tenant failed to pay rent for four months. Such provisions were subject to strict application and the landlord alleged only three months without payment of rent.
(Overview summary)
Capitol South, Inc., Appellant, v. Concord Fitness MO, LLC, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113250