Case summaries for Feb. 28-March 6, 2025

Administrative | ADR | Attorneys | Criminal | Employment | Evidence | Family | Personal injury | Workers' compensation

Administrative

No sunshine law violation stated 
The elements of an action for failure to produce open records included the mental state of knowingly or purposefully, which means that any record must have existed as described in the plaintiff requester’s request. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent produced one record as described in the plaintiff’s request and did not allege that any other document matched that description. Whether the drafter of the document had authority to draft the document was irrelevant. The plaintiff’s request for another, earlier, document was conditioned on such other document’s existence so. Since no earlier document existed, none need have been produced. The petition’s allegations stated no claim. Dismissal for failure to state a claim, even without prejudice, was subject to appeal when the plaintiff elected to stand on the petition as dismissed. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment of dismissal. 
(Overview summary) 
Sylvia Pride vs. Boone County Prosecutor's Office, Roger Johnson, and Tracy Skaggs 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86900

Arguments not raised at agency not preserved for circuit court 
Points relied on had to challenge a circuit court ruling, and the ruling that the appellant cited did not occur, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed those points. In zoning litigation, the complainants had a duty to preserve their arguments by raising them to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, even though applicants had the burden of proof and complainants did not, and board members’ discussion of those issues was no substitute. A complainant could still appeal, but the appellate standard of review on unpreserved matters was less favorable to the complainant than on preserved matters. “[A] reviewing court may still consider unpreserved points if it believes injustice might otherwise result.” The Court of Appeals dismissed the remaining points. 
(Overview summary) 
Arnold Shute, et al., Appellants, vs. Board of Zoning Adjustments of Franklin County, Missouri, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112891

Hearing officer couldn’t officiate at hearing 
Circuit court’s writs of prohibition were subject to review for abuse of discretion, meaning a failure to follow the statutes. Statutes required agency to conduct hearings and authorized the agency to make procedural regulations. Those regulations authorized the board to “appoint a Hearing Officer to act as its designee for all pre-hearing matters and to review the evidence presented in any hearing and make recommendations to the Board.” But that provision did not expressly authorize delegating conduct of the hearing to a hearing officer. The board’s rescission of the hearing officer’s decision did not moot the matter because the decision remained on file. The circuit court did not err in making its preliminary writ permanent. 
(Overview summary) 
Joshua Lasley, Respondent, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112661

ADR

Arbitration agreement applied only to a distinct aspect of parties’ transactions 
Arbitration was a matter of contract: compulsory only where agreed. The Federal Arbitration Act made arbitration agreements enforceable or unenforceable as any other contract. One contract required arbitration for any dispute “arising out of or in connection with” that contract. That language was not broad enough to include any dispute arising out of or in connection with another contract, even though the parties executed both contracts the same day in related transactions, when each contract covered a “distinct aspect” of the transactions. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 
(Overview summary) 
Disruption 8, LLC vs. Vertical Enterprise, LLC 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87028

Arbitration agreement delegated arbitrability 
On the plaintiff’s entry into the defendant’s place of amusement, the parties entered into a contract releasing the defendant from liability for injuries to the plaintiff. That release included an agreement to arbitrate. On a motion to compel arbitration, an order of denial was an interlocutory ruling, but was subject to immediate appeal by statute, including de novo review of its provisions’ effect. The parties disputed the release’s validity and scope, which were matters of arbitrability, which the agreement assigned to an arbiter in its delegation clause. To challenge a delegation clause required a theory specific to the delegation clause and not made as to the agreement as a whole. The respondent raised no such challenge, so the delegation clause deprived the circuit court of authority to rule on arbitrability. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded the matter to grant the motion to compel. 
(Overview summary) 
Presley Karlin, Respondent, vs. UATP Springfield, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Springfield, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100512

Attorneys

Disciplinary procedure for judges explained and applied 
On the discipline of judges, the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline investigated and made recommendations to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Court conducted a review limited to the commission’s proceedings and had no authority to treat the disciplinary proceeding as a disability proceeding or hear oral argument once waived, but was not bound by the disciplinary recommendation. The respondent judge of the circuit court’s associate division delayed entry of judgments for years, lied to parties and the commission, and falsely blamed court staff. The delayed matters included “critically important, time-sensitive cases involving divorce, child custody, child support, minor guardianship, paternity, and orders of protection.” Such conduct constituted cause for discipline as misconduct and incompetency. The commission recommended six months’ suspension without pay. The Court suspended the judge for a year without pay. 
(Overview summary) 
In re: The Honorable Joe Don McGaugh, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100875

Probation rejected 
Respondent violated rules governing the attorney-client relationship, and attorneys’ relationship to tribunals, related to diligence, communication, and candor. Specifically, the respondent settled a case without authority and paid sanctions without disclosing the purpose. Intentional wrongdoing and significant consequences made disbarment the presumptively applicable discipline, so probation was not an option. Only mitigating circumstances prevented disbarment. The Supreme Court of Missouri suspended the lawyer indefinitely with leave to re-apply in three years. 
(Overview summary) 
In re: Paul Eric Petruska, Respondent 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100727

Criminal

No prejudice from uncharged crime evidence 
The elements of a felon in possession of a firearm included possession, meaning knowledge and control. The defendant’s possession of the firearm, in a car with other individuals, had support in the location of the firearm under the defendant’s seat and commingled with the defendant’s sole possessions. Abuse of discretion was the standard of review for the denial of a mistrial. Mistrial was a remedy when the prosecutor elicited testimony of uncharged crimes, but the defendant could not show prejudice because saying that a firearm was stolen was not the same as saying that the defendant stole the firearm. That was especially true when the defendant had already testified that he might have bought a stolen firearm, the prosecution did not emphasize the matter, and the circuit court gave a curative instruction, and the matter was not decisive. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jaquez Latin 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86933

Audience and participant same person 
The elements of sexual trafficking of a child in the second degree by sexual performance included an audience. But simultaneous direction and performance, public display, and even reaching an intended audience, were not elements. “Instead, the focus of the statute is on the child’s anticipated behavior in response to some manner of instigation by the defendant [that made defendant] as much director as … audience [.]” The defendant’s detailed instructions to the victim raised an inference that the defendant watched victim. All the elements occurred in Missouri and the occurrence of the related events in Florida did not deprive Missouri of jurisdiction. Such evidence supported submitting of a verdict director. Charging error in submitting a verdict director did not preserve error in the form of the verdict director and the defendant charged no error in the verdict director’s form. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jeremy Baum 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD85148

Automobile exception applied 
Automobiles constituted an exception to the warrant requirement for conducting a search when a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that a weapon or evidence of a crime was present. Automobiles presented an exigent circumstance because of their mobility and, even if immobile, carried a lesser reasonable expectation of privacy. The condition of the car and driver gave the officer probable cause to believe that an offense had occurred. On denial of a motion to suppress evidence, preservation of error in the admission of that evidence required an objection at the earliest opportunity, which occurred when the state offered the evidence. No plain error occurred in admitting evidence discovered during the search. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Douglas Beeson, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112071

Employment

Defendant’s summary judgment affirmed 
The Human Rights Act barred employment discrimination by age, race, and sex. The act allowed the filing of an action within a time, beyond which the plaintiff employee could reach by showing an ongoing practice or pattern of discrimination to support a continuing violation theory, but isolated incidents unconnected to an adverse employment action did not make that showing. The act incorporated a burden-shifting analysis for summary judgment. Summary judgment was due parties without the burden of proof when such party established beyond genuine dispute, facts that negated an element of the opposing party’s claim. The elements of a claim for age, race, and sex discrimination in employment included age, race, and sex as a motivating factor in an adverse employment action against the plaintiff like a non-discriminatory basis; so a non-discriminatory basis for the adverse employment action shifted the burden to the plaintiff. The defendant established that inappropriate texts on a work phone motivated the “sole decisionmaker” in the plaintiff’s firing — not age, race, and sex — and that the sole decision maker did not involve any other personnel in the decision. The elements of a claim for hostile work environment included a pervasive atmosphere of discrimination, and the defendant showed that the atmosphere was neither pervasive nor discriminatory. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview summary) 
Perry Allen vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87287

Evidence

Identification from surveillance was okay 
Lay witnesses could not testify to scientific or technical matters without some extra familiarity that the jury did not. The jury did not have any familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, but lay witnesses did, and so could identify the defendant from a surveillance video recording. In criminal trials, the jury resolved factual questions and witnesses could not invade that province with their testimony. And, even if admitting that evidence was error, the defendant showed no prejudice because other evidence of the theft was overwhelming. To prove that the value of items stolen, a purchase sales receipt, a printout of a similar model item from the seller’s website, and the owner’s testimony on the depreciation and market value and of the items was sufficient. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Andrew J. Perrey, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112081

Family

Maintenance re-calculated 
One party’s transfer of assets into a trust with the other spouse’s property raised a presumption of transmutation from separate to marital property, which required clear and convincing evidence to rebut, which the appellant did not offer. In calculating maintenance, the circuit court erred in reducing the respondent’s income by gross income by itemized deductions and Child Tax Credit. In calculating the appellant’s liability for child support, Form 14 prescribed a three-year income average, but allowed departure from that standard, and the circuit court did not err in using a four-year average. That average supported including private school tuition in child support. Judgment reversed and remanded for the circuit court to order maintenance and child support in amounts as found by the Missouri Court of Appeals. 
(Overview summary) 
Melissa M. Carter, Respondent, vs. Drew B. Carter, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112335

Personal injury

Intervening cause superseded direct and imputed liability 
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict was due when a plaintiff failed to support one of the claim’s elements. The elements of negligence included causation both in fact (actual or but-for) and legal (proximate or direct). The former was for the jury but the latter was for the courts. Causation could come from more than one source and, “[i]f a prior and remote cause does nothing more than give rise to an occasion by which an injury is made possible, and there intervenes between that cause and the injury a distinct and unrelated cause of injury, a negligence action does not lie, even though the 'but for' test is satisfied.” The plaintiff charged that the defendant school bus provider negligently caused the plaintiff student’s injuries by failing to sufficiently inform a substitute bus driver of which corner of an intersection to drop plaintiff off. But a driver’s disregard of traffic signs and the school bus’ warning signs constituted an intervening and superseding cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the plaintiff's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview summary) 
D.J., by and through his Next Friend, R.J., Respondent, vs. First Student, Inc., Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100702

App was a product 
Appellate courts reviewed de novo whether a petition alleged facts describing a claim. On a claim for product liability, whether by negligence or strict liability, the elements included a defectively designed product. The plaintiffs met that requirement by alleging that the defendant’s application was analogous to any tangible property in the stream of commerce and caused the death of the plaintiff’s decedent because it lacked basic protections against fraudulent hails. “[T]he product need not be actually sold if it has been injected in the stream of commerce by other means … [and] … it is the defendant’s participatory connection, for his personal profit or other benefit, with the injury-producing product and with the enterprise that created consumer demand for and reliance upon the product which calls for the imposition of strict liability[.]” Claims of negligence also had an element of duty from the defendant to the plaintiff’s decedent. The plaintiff satisfied that element by describing facts under which the defendants could be liable for third party criminal acts: special facts known to the defendant that made fraudulent hails foreseeable, and bringing the plaintiff’s decedent into contact with fraudulent hails. 
(Overview summary) 
Rochelle Ameer, Appellant, vs. Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes, Defendants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112455

Workers’ compensation

Unreasonable conduct discussed 
Employers were liable for any reasonable and necessary medical treatment that the employees sought and the employers refused. Whether the employee paid for it or had reached maximum medical improvement was irrelevant. New and worsening symptoms showed that the demand was reasonable and necessary without any ruling on compensability. “Employer’s … complete and unconditional refusal [meant that] Employee became free to select his own doctor for further treatment of the work-related injury, and Employer became liable for that treatment[.]” The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission had discretion to make an award of costs for unreasonable conduct. The commission denied such an award based on employer’s investigation and evidence. That ruling was not an abuse of discretion. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the denial of medical expenses and affirmed the denial of costs. 
(Overview summary) 
Michael Erwin vs. Midway Arms, Inc. d/b/a Midway, USA 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87161