Case summaries for March 6-12, 2026

Administrative | ADR | Criminal | Family | Orders of protection | Personal injury

Administrative

No substituting lay opinion for expert opinion
A licensing agency decided license applications under an objective system that assigned numerical scores to questions on the applications. The agency required contracted scorers (“scorers”) to possess qualifications for scoring, making their scores a form of expert opinion. The agency repeatedly emphasized that identical answers merited identical scores. Nevertheless, the scorers assigned differing scores to identical answers (“disputed scores”) on which the agency denied the applications. On review at the Administrative Hearing Commission (“Commission”), the applicant showed what the disputed scores should have been through expert evidence that the agency did not contest. Moreover, the record impeached the qualifications of the agency contractor scorers. The Commission re-determined the disputed scores using neither the method of the scorers nor the applicant’s experts. Instead, the Commission substituted its own lay opinion based on its perception of what the scorers’ subjective intent was: the score most frequently appearing. No evidence supported that method, resulting in an unreasonable and arbitrary decision. The circuit court affirmed the Commission. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the action to the circuit, ordering the circuit court to grant the applications.
HIPPOS, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38218

ADR

Arbitration clause’s exclusion applied
The denial of a motion to dismiss was not subject to interlocutory appeal. Challenges to standing were subject to challenge by writ of prohibition. The denial of a motion to compel arbitration was subject to appeal de novo because arbitration was a matter of contract and contractual language was as a matter of contract. The appellant movant bank’s arbitration agreement expressly excluded business accounts like the subject of the party’s litigation. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the appellant ‘s motion to compel arbitration. 
(Overview summary)
Michael Waller, Respondent, vs. Commerce Bank, et al., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87936

Criminal

No motion, no severance 
Incorporation by reference was not sufficient for a preservation statement or any other part of an argument section. Appellate courts generally did not review matters not raised in circuit court, including severance of charges not the subject of a motion in circuit court. Unpreserved but plain errors affecting substantial rights were “sparingly” subject to review in appellate courts’ discretion. Acquiescence to facts that enhanced the sentence substituted for a jury finding on those facts so the enhanced sentence did not constitute error. The Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion against performing plain error review. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony M. Brewer, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113149

Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund assessment adjusted
Unpreserved matters were subject to review for plain error. Even if plain error occurred, appellate courts had discretion whether to review it. Plain error meant an error that was obvious, affected a substantial right, and determined the outcome. Acquittal on one charge negated the outcome-determinative character on other charges of admitting prior misconduct evidence. A sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law constituted plain error. The consequences of any offense depended on the statutes in effect at the time of the offense. At the time of the defendant’s offenses, sentences could include payments to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund for some offenses, but not for any class E felony, because that classification did not exist. When no discretion was involved in the sentence, no remand was necessary, and appellate courts could enter the judgment that the circuit court should have entered. The Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment sentencing the defendant as the circuit court did, but without payment to the fund for the class E felony. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113080

Family

Designation of address was necessary 
A finding on the child’s best interest was necessary to determine which school the child should attend and written findings of fact were required on that matter. But no motion to amend was necessary to preserve that matter when the appellate theory was the absence of any substantial evidence in support. Substantial evidence supporting the ruling included the parties’ proximity and work schedules, and the child’s close relations with half-siblings who all attended the chosen school. The appellant’s agreement to pay private tuition at another school constituted substantial evidence that the appellant should pay private tuition at the chosen school. The circuit court had to designate a parent’s residence as the child’s address for education and mailing purposes, and base that determination on the child’s best interests, but failed to do so. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the required findings and designation, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Wade Curtis Brandl, Individually and as Next Friend for H.C.B., Appellant, vs. Adria Sophia Anderson, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88111

Move out of state supported motion to modify 
The elements of a motion to modify child custody included a change in the circumstances existing when the previous custody order issued. To change from joint to sole, the change had to be substantial, but not when the change was from sole to joint. The movant met that standard by alleging that one parent was moving out of state, so the circuit court erred in dismissing the motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action to determine the child’s best interests. 
(Overview summary)
David Lee Couzens, Jr., Respondent, vs. Devyn Lea Post, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88021

Child support calculated on appeal 
Stock options constituted contingent benefits subject to distribution as marital property. Their contingent nature notwithstanding, the appellant did not show any abuse of discretion in the property division, because the judgment showed that circuit court carefully considered all relevant factors including risk. The appellant argued that no substantial evidence supported the date at which the circuit court calculated a pension’s value but the appellant ignored evidence that favored that date, so the appellant did not show error. The face of the judgment showed that the circuit court’s calculation of child support rested on a miscalculation of each party’s overnights, so the Missouri Court of Appeals estimated the number of overnights due the appellant, and the amount of child support due on that number, and entered judgment accordingly. 
(Overview summary)
In RE the Marriage of: Kelly Ann Bennett, Respondent, vs. Travis Warren Bennett, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87984

Orders of protection

Lifetime renewal supported 
The elements of an ex parte order of protection included an "immediate and present” danger, while that language was absent from the elements of a full order of protection. Grounds for issuance — and therefore, presumably, renewal — of a full order of protection included domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or harassment. Harassment did not appear in the judgment, but the judgment included findings on the other grounds. Those grounds had support in evidence of the appellant’s physical threats to the respondent and the respondent’s family, and violations of previous orders; and the exhibits that the appellant omitted from the legal file presumably supported the judgment as well. Lifetime renewal required written findings of fact but the appellant failed to preserve that issue because the appellant failed to file a motion to amend. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment renewing the full order for the appellant’s lifetime. 
(Overview summary)
L.J.F., Respondent, vs. J.F.G., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87987

Personal injury

Judgment on police shooting affirmed in part, reversed in part
Appellate courts addressed arguments as to the finality of judgments, whether preserved or not preserved, when the entry of a final and appealable judgment was the basis of their jurisdiction. In actions for wrongful death, orders relating to the enforcement of judgments were necessary, but did not have to be part of any judgment. The petition prayed for punitive damages but the plaintiffs failed to submit that matter to the jury, which “irrevocably abandoned” the matter, so the judgment did not have to address punitive damages. The plaintiffs’ judgment, omitting those unnecessary matters, was nonetheless final. Official immunity barred any liability in a public employee for conduct undertaken in the discretionary exercise of official duties absent an intention to harm the person actually harmed. Even recklessness did not substitute for intention and only intentional torts were subject to transferred intent. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant defendant law enforcement officer intended to injure the plaintiff passenger in a fleeing vehicle, but that allegation had no support in any evidence, and the defendant’s testimony refuted that allegation. The circuit court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for failure to make a submissible case. That conclusion mooted the defendant’s claims of error in the instructions’ definitions of malice. Intentional torts were not subject to the official immunity defense but were subject to other defenses. Criminal instructions on self-defense were inapplicable, not submitted, and the circuit court’s failure to submit sua sponte was not plain error. Reasonableness as to the defendant law enforcement officer shooting of the plaintiffs’ decedent driver was a question of law only on undisputed facts and was otherwise a jury question. Recorded exhibits, expert testimony explaining the synchronizing of audio and video, and an arrow to distinguish defendant, was necessary to help lay persons understand their import; and the defendant showed no prejudice. The defendant showed no prejudice from the definition of malice as to the driver because they only increased the plaintiffs’ burden of proof. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, except as to the passenger, as to whom the Court of Appeals entered judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview summary)
Randi McGaugh, et al., Respondents, vs. Tyler Naudet, et al., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87542 consolidated with WD87576