Case summaries for April 10-16, 2026

ADR | Elections | Post-conviction | Tax

ADR

No notice given, no arbitration compelled 
When the facts were undisputed, appellate courts reviewed de novo whether an arbitration agreement was enforceable and the circuit court should have granted a motion to compel. When parties expressly agreed that State law governed their arbitration agreement, federal law did not pre-empt State law, even when the agreement involved interstate commerce. The parties agreed that the Missouri Arbitration Act applied to their arbitration agreement, so the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply. The Missouri Arbitration Act required arbitration agreements to include a notice as specified. “[W]hen an arbitration agreement is subject to the [Missouri Arbitration Act], and does not include the mandatory notice statement required . . . , the arbitration agreement cannot be enforced.” The circuit court denied the motion to compel, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary)
Tri-Star Imports, Inc., d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of St. Louis, Respondent, v. Jackson Lewis, P.C., et al., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113734

Elections

St. Louis ethics initiative unripe for judicial action 
Summary judgment was due a party that established, beyond genuine dispute, the facts entitling it to a favorable ruling. Courts ruled only on claims that were justiciable. Justiciability included ripeness. Ripeness meant “an immediate, concrete dispute” in contrast to a “hypothetical or speculative situation that may never come to pass.” That described the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment on an initiative addressing outside employment for members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. The plaintiff was a member of the board but did not allege that she had any outside employment or any such prospect. Those facts showed an unripe claim. On an unripe claim, courts would not reach the merits of the claim and would only dismiss the claim. The summary judgment record showed that the defendant City of St. Louis was entitled to a judgment of dismissal, so the Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment accordingly. 
(Overview summary)
Laura Keys, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113771

Deceptive language stricken from ballot summary on initiative protections
On a record of undisputed fact, appellate courts review the judgment de novo. For constitutional amendments proposed by initiative petitions, the Secretary of State had to certify ballot summaries. The General Assembly enacted a procedure for the Secretary to revise ballot summaries by unconstitutional means, so any such revision was null. Ballot summaries had to be impartial and informative. That did not describe a ballot summary that included a matter not addressed in the proposed amendment, and that speculated as to a possible side effect without any reasoned basis. The summary argued that the proposal would increase non-Missouri influence, but the proposal only decreased the General Assembly’s influence, on initiatives. That language was “therefore deceptive, misleading, and argumentative [.]” The circuit court struck the offending language and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview Summary)
Caitlyn Adams vs. Denny Hoskins, in his official capacity as the Missouri Secretary of State
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88831

Post-conviction

Credibility thwarted relief 
The movant claimed that the movant premised a guilty plea on the plea counsel’s advice that the movant could still seek suppression of evidence later. At the evidentiary hearing on the motion, the plea counsel testified that the plea counsel’s advice was the opposite: suppression would no longer be an option. The circuit court believed the plea counsel, and that determination found deference on appeal. The circuit court denied relief, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Rafael M. Armstrong vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87710

Advice against testifying was sound 
“Counsel’s advice regarding whether to testify ‘does not constitute a ground for post-conviction relief, absent exceptional circumstances.’” A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel required a showing of substandard performance, which was negated by a showing of sound strategy. Sound strategy included advice against testifying when the movant had already given two other inconsistent versions of the events, had prior convictions, and was on probation. The circuit court’s colloquy with the movant supported that conclusion, and the movant’s dissatisfaction in hindsight did not undermine that conclusion. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel required a showing of prejudice, which the movant could not show because the movant’s third version of the events was self-defense, which was unavailable against the charge of felony murder. The circuit court denied relief, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Teraz L. Bateman, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113579

Investigation and evidence was sufficient 
“The selection of witnesses and the introduction of evidence are questions of trial strategy and virtually unchallengeable in an ineffective assistance claim.” Such a claim required the movant to show that prejudice resulted from the counsel’s deficient performance, which was negated by showing a reasonable strategy. Reasonable trial strategy included investigating and presenting evidence enough to refute the State’s allegations when further investigation and evidence would have provided no further viable defense. 
(Overview summary)
Marvin Rice, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113437
 

Tax

Local sales tax was optional 
Writs of mandamus were due only for ministerial duties to which the petitioner had an unequivocal right. When circuit courts issued a preliminary order in mandamus, and denied a permanent writ, that judgment was subject to appeal. Review was for abuse of discretion. When the parties did not dispute the facts, the only review was of the circuit court’s legal conclusions. Tax statutes were subject to strict construction against the tax. An initiative could authorize a county’s governing body to levy a sales tax by ordinance, and did not mandate such a tax. Without that mandate, the circuit court denied issuance of the writ. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Warren G. "Greg" Plumb and Tara Bennett vs. Missouri Department of Revenue, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88043