Case summaries for Feb. 14-20, 2025

Administrative | Appellate | Civil Procedure | Construction| Constitutional | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Post-conviction

Administrative

Credibility determination was really an unsupported finding and a lay opinion 
Statutes determined benefits by the degree of disability, and whether the disability was duty-related, as decided by contested case before a governing board. A lay board could not ignore, and substitute its own opinion for, undisputed medical evidence of causation. A board regulation, requiring the board to “rely upon the findings of a medical board” for the degree of disability had no application to determining whether the disability was duty-related. The disability was duty-related, experts opined, which the board rejected as based on the claimant’s unreliable statements. But the record refuted that rejection: The experts did not take statements from the claimant and based their opinions on the board’s job description and their experience examining similar injuries. “Where an administrative agency rejects expert testimony on a basis which is contradicted by the record, the agency decision is not a simple credibility determination to which we must defer. Instead, such an administrative determination is unsupported by substantial evidence, and must be overturned.” The experts also opined that causation depended on all job duties over a whole career, while the board focused on a few tasks in the most recent two or three years, which constituted a substitution of lay opinion for expert opinion. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court judgment that reversed the board’s denial of duty-related benefits and remanded the action to the board for a duty-related award. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, ex rel. Jeremy Starr vs. Board of Trustee for the Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87111

Appellate

No appeal from invited error 
For bench trials, preserving any matter for appeal did not require an after-trial motion but still required notice to the court. The circuit court’s presumed knowledge of the law was no substitute for an objection to the quality of the performance by the appellant’s guardian ad litem. The appellant’s guardian ad litem and the appellant’s conservator made no objection when the respondent announced the settlement at hearing, and signed the circuit court’s memorandum of settlement, which acquiesced in the settlement. The appellant sought no plain error review, and the Missouri Court of Appeals declined to conduct such a review ex gratia. 
(Overview summary) 
John R. Mennerich, Respondent, vs. Patricia S. Mennerich, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112606

Civil Procedure

No waiver of sovereign immunity for lack of surveillance, mandamus issued
Sovereign immunity’s limited waiver for dangerous conditions of government property required that a physical condition in the property caused an injury and the absence of “an intangible act” was not sufficient. The lack of surveillance in a stairwell did not cause plaintiff’s injury by criminal conduct of a third person. The Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to dismiss plaintiff’s action.
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. SPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Relator vs. THE HONORABLE JOSHUA BOYD CHRISTENSEN, CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38624

Construction

No appeal from receivership ruling 
In a receivership proceeding, the circuit court approved the sale of a property and the payment of claims related to the property from an allocated fund. The appellant filed a proof of claim, the receiver objected that a mechanic’s lien had priority, and the circuit court issued an order sustaining the objection in part. Appeals from any ruling order were possible only as the statutes provided, which generally included judgments certified for appeal specifically for designated interlocutory orders. Certification for appeal required the resolution of a judicial unit, which meant one claim as to all parties or all claims as to one party. The order did not deny the appellant’s claim resolution of the appellant’s claim required resolution of other claims still pending like the mechanic’s lien. Specifically in receivership actions, the statutes allowed an appeal from an order denying any change to the appointment of a receiver. The order did not address the receiver’s appointment. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
231 Partners, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. Cannaver, LLC, Defendant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112592

Constitutional

Felon in possession statute okay 
Constitutional provisions protected the right to keep and bear arms. A statute criminalized possession of a firearm by a felon. The defendant appealed a conviction as a felon in possession on constitutional grounds, over which the Supreme Court of Missouri had exclusive jurisdiction. But that argument was merely colorable because the Court had rejected it repeatedly so the Missouri Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to rule on the argument. The statute was subject to judicial review for strict scrutiny, which the statute passed, because the General Assembly narrowly tailored the statute to meet a compelling state interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Leo B. Robinson 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86474

Criminal

Judgment on the pleadings for jail time credit reversed 
Judgment on the pleadings was due when the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law when taking the responding party’s pleading as true. Statutes credited pre-sentence confinement related to an offense against the sentence for that offense. Case numbers for an information and substitute information did not define the offenses. The plaintiff offender alleged confinements for offenses as charged by information before sentencing on those offenses respectively as charged by substitute information. Those facts, if true, could entitle the plaintiff to jail time credit and so did not entitle defendant Department of Corrections to judgment. “It is difficult to discern precisely what the DOC argued in its motion for judgment on the pleadings, given that the arguments contained therein do not appear to accurately represent or address the allegations in Rowell’s petition. Consequently, it is difficult to discern precisely why the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in a judgment that copied the DOC’s motion word-for-word.” The circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action to the circuit court. 
(Overview summary) 
Anthony Rowell vs. Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87127

Evidence

Expert’s testimony on standard of care clarified 
Circuit court rulings on the exclusion of evidence were subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion occurred when reasonable minds could disagree on the ruling. Rulings on the exclusion of expert evidence were subject to a statute setting forth the foundation for admission into evidence. That foundation included evidence of the professional standard of care. The standard of care for a physician included knowing the patients assigned to that physician, which the defendant physicians could have done by consulting the medical records system in use at the defendant hospital, which the plaintiff’s expert had used. The expert’s use of the system did not establish a standard of care, so the circuit court excluded the expert’s testimony, and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed those rulings because the expert testified that the standard of care was knowledge of assigned patients and seeing the plaintiff’s decedent within an hour. Whether using the system could have helped the defendants perform that duty was “more fitting under a breach of duty analysis rather than standard of care analysis.” Whether the co-defendants owed the plaintiff’s decedent any duty of care depended on whether the co-defendants had a physician/patient relationship with the plaintiff’s decedent, which remained in dispute, negating dismissal of the action against the co-defendants. 
(Overview summary) 
Joanne Knight, Appellant, v. Huilin Li, M.D., Sam Bishara, M.D., and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112826

Family

Good cause was no defense to civil contempt 
Parties were liable for civil contempt on proof that they failed to meet an obligation imposed by a decree of dissolution of marriage. The circuit court found that the obligor’s failure to pay child support was willful and contumacious but also found that the obligor had good cause. Good cause applied to actions for failure to pay child support, not to actions for civil contempt. The earliest that a circuit court could order a retroactive modification of child support was the date on which the responding party received personal service of a motion to modify filed in Missouri, not the motion to modify filed in Kansas. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to the retroactive date and reconsideration of civil contempt and an award of attorney fees in the contempt action. 
(Overview summary) 
Jon P. Whitton vs. Heather A. Whitton (NKA Peterson) 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86940 consolidated with WD86952

Post-conviction

No abandonment with voluntary counsel 
Circuit courts had no authority to rule on any amended motion filed late unless the late filing was by the appointed counsel because late filings by the appointed counsel raised a presumption of abandonment. The abandonment doctrine applied to the appointed counsel only, not even to a public defender if not appointed. “The notification that a motion court sends to the Missouri Public Defender’s office when a movant files a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, even if notated in a docket entry, cannot be a substitute for the appointment of counsel.” So the voluntary counsel’s late filing of an amended motion did not invoke the circuit court’s authority to rule on that amended motion. That left the circuit court with authority over the initial motion only. The initial motion included claims not appearing in the amended motion, so ruling on the amended motion left some of the initial motion’s claims undecided. Claims undecided rendered the judgment less than final and so not subject to appeal so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112275

Extension ordered out of time, abandonment inquiry necessary
A rule allowed extensions of time to file an amended motion but only within the time for filing an amended motion. The circuit court purported to grant an extension after that time had lapsed, so the amended motion was filed late, necessitating an inquiry into whether post-conviction counsel had abandoned movant. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment that ruled on the amended motion and remanded the action for an inquiry into abandonment.
MICHAEL DAVID BURGE, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38435