Case summaries for Feb. 27-March 5, 2026

Administrative | Appellate | Civil | Consumer | Criminal | Family | Real estate

Administrative

Practice supported firing
Agency employees were subject to employers’ standards, and to discipline in reasonable accord with the gravity of a breach of such standards. Agency decisions carried a presumption of correctness, and were subject to judicial review in any court on the whole record, not just the evidence supporting the decision. The respondent fire district’s procedure constituted due process. The record supported a finding that the appellant employee violated a supervisor’s safety directive, creating an unjustified danger to other employees and property owners, and an environmental hazard. The record also supported a finding that the employee changed another employee’s leave to a taxpayer-funded category in violation of agency practice. Clear notice of standards was “generally” due “[but] these notice requirements do not apply ‘where the conduct was clearly wrong.’” The record further showed that uncharged conduct was not among the grounds for the agency’s termination of the employee. Courts also deferred to the weight that the agency assigned to the evidence and the discretion that the employer exercised on the facts. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District reversed the circuit court, affirmed the agency, and remanded the action to the circuit court to reinstate the agency decision. 
(Overview summary)
David Matusik, Respondent, vs. Lake Ozark Fire Protection District, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88004

Administrative remedies not exhausted 
The elements of declaratory judgment included the absence of an adequate remedy at law, like an administrative hearing, on which the appellant’s petition for judicial review was still pending. An exception when notice was lacking did not apply because the plaintiff received notice, which cut off actions in circuit court, and acted on it. Another exception applied when the only question was whether an ordinance conflicted with a statutory provision, or a statute conflicted with a constitutional provision, but the presence of factual disputes negated that exception. The circuit court dismissed the action and the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
QuikTrip Corporation, Appellant, v. City of St. Charles, Missouri, Jennifer O'Connor, and Zachary Tusinger, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113624

Appellate

No dismissal, no appeal
On a motion to compel arbitration, the procedure in circuit court and appellate courts depended on the presence of factual disputes. When no party disputed the existence of an arbitration agreement, no evidentiary hearing was necessary and appellate review was de novo. When a party contested the existence of an arbitration agreement, an evidentiary hearing was necessary, and review was for abuse of discretion. The appellant cited the wrong standard of review, and the right standard of review could engage any one or more of four theories, so the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District dismissed that point relied on. The existence of an arbitration agreement was in dispute but the evidentiary hearing required no live testimony, only sufficient other materials for resolution, and the appellant showed none. The appellant offered no live testimony so the Court of Appeals did not hear the appellant’s challenge to the absence of live testimony. The denial of a motion to dismiss was not part of a final judgment and did not constitute any other ruling subject to appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Michael Harris, et al., Respondents, v. Starbucks Corporation, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113748

No review for invited error 
Appellate courts did not review invited error, including the admission of testimony that the defendant elicited on cross-examination. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District affirmed the conviction, except as to the written sentence’s departure from the spoken sentence, for which the circuit court remanded to correct by order nunc pro tunc. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher J. Whitbey, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113286

Civil

Mistrial preserved
A treating physician could offer expert testimony. Expert testimony was admissible on a foundation that included a reliable basis, which the treating physician offered, so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. Context determined whether closing arguments misstated the law, and the plaintiff’s discussion of percentages of fault occurred in the context of the verdict director. And correct instructions negated any prejudice. Parties waived mistrial when they continued with the trial inconsistently with their objection, which did not include seeking a mistrial soon after submission to the jury. The defendant did not show prejudice from a limited reference to a matter partially not in evidence. Preservation of instructional error required “a specific objection” “stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” That applied to the rejection of a proffered instruction and a motion for new trial was no substitute. 
(Overview summary)
Terence Marks, Respondent, v. City of St. Louis, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113479

Consumer

No sovereign immunity for selling patient data 
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim looked to whether allegations, if true, described any claim for relief. The circuit court did not err in excluding matters outside the petition from its consideration. Sovereign immunity negated claims in that it protected municipalities as to governmental functions but not proprietary functions. The distinction depended on whether the activity alleged to have caused the injury benefited either the general population or profited the municipality. The plaintiffs’ “copiously detailed allegations” described a proprietary function: not health care generally, specifically the secret sale of patients’ personalized data. Under those allegations, sovereign immunity would not protect the hospital and its governing body. The purchase of liability could waive sovereign immunity under either of two statutes, so the circuit court erred in failing to apply one of those statutes, and the allegations described a waiver of sovereign immunity. The public duty doctrine protected municipal employees who in the exercise of duties owed to the general public but not duties specific to the plaintiff, which is what the plaintiffs alleged, so the public duty doctrine would not apply to the facts alleged. Statutes imposing civil liability for violation of criminal statutes did not apply to the municipality, its hospital, and its board, because those entities were not subject to criminal liability. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District affirmed the judgment of dismissal as to those claims, reversed the judgment as to the remaining claims, and remanded the action. 
(Overview Summary) 
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87830

Criminal

No plain error review for instruction’s definition of assault
The elements of resisting arrest included at least an attempted stop and a reasonable person’s understanding that an attempted arrest of defendant was in progress. Defendant’s stated desire to elude the law enforcement and law enforcement’s statement “Police, don’t move,” were sufficient, and other circumstances added to the State’s case. Using an approved instruction was never error. The criminal instruction for assault used a civil definition that resembled assault in the fourth degree, while the jury found defendant guilty of assault in the third degree. Neither clear error nor manifest injustice occurred and the Court of Appeals declined plain error review on that point. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ANGELA KAY FURTADO, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38810

Retaliation not shown 
The parties’ agreement rendered moot the defendant’s earlier motion for continuance and the defendant failed to preserve the grounds for a later motion for continuance by failing to raise it in circuit court. A similarly situated but unstruck juror supported a Batson objection to a peremptory strike and negated clear error. “To prevail on a claim that the trial court improperly increased his sentence in retaliation for exercising his constitutional right to trial, [defendant had to] show not only that the court considered his decision to proceed to trial, but also that it was the “determinative factor” in the sentence imposed.” That did not describe the circuit court’s reference to pre-trial plea bargaining when weighed with other significant factors relevant to sentencing. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen Andrew Eagleton, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113204

Family

No final judgment without property distribution
Appellate courts always examine their own jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction included final judgments, meaning judgments that ruled on all issues as to all parties. In actions for dissolution of marriage, circuit courts had to distribute property. The earlier judgment distributed respective dollar amounts of property, but not by item, so the earlier judgment was not final. Therefore, earlier judgment did not start the time by which the circuit court lost authority over the action, and the later judgment was timely. The later judgment was final, and unchallenged on appeal, so the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District affirmed the later judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Kyle Wagner, Appellant, v. Tammy Wagner, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113807

Real estate

Quiet title judgment needed better descriptions 
The elements of adverse possession included exclusive possession, so whether a trustee farmed land for the trust or for himself individually was relevant, and the circuit court did not err in allowing cross-examination on that matter. On the exclusion of evidence, an offer of proof was necessary to preserve the matters, even if the matter was subject to a motion in limine, because motions in limine resulted in interlocutory orders. And, without an offer of proof, the letters were not part of the record on appeal, and the appellant did not include them. Affirmative converse instructions were appropriate for verdict directors that omitted an element of the claim. The verdict director and a converse instruction already covered the element addressed in a proffered affirmative converse instruction so the circuit court did not err in rejecting the proffered instruction. Judgment determining title to real estate had to describe their subject matter with enough certainty for finality and recording. The parties’ description of the subject tracts was sufficient for finality but not for recording. The Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District remanded the judgment to circuit court for inclusion of a sufficient description any further proceedings necessary for that purpose. 
(Overview summary)
Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm, Respondents, vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust, Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87720 consolidated with WD87756