Case summaries for April 17-23, 2026

Civil | Criminal | Family | Orders of protection | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Probate | Tax

Civil

Summary judgment response no good, pleading of affirmative defense not preserved
“This Court rejects the proposition summary judgment is an extreme and drastic remedy.” Appellate review of summary judgment was de novo but the appellant still had the burden of showing error. Summary judgment was due any party who established beyond genuine dispute the material facts, that is, facts on which the law entitled the moving party to a favorable ruling. A defendant could do so by alleging and evidencing facts that described an affirmative defense. Any affirmative defense had to appear in an answer, but the appellant did not preserve that matter and could not raise it in a reply brief. Responses to summary judgment motions had to raise a genuine dispute of material fact by responding respectively to the paragraphs as numbered in the motion and supporting each response with admissible evidence. Failure to comply constituted an admission. The appellant failed to comply and alleged no further material facts. The appellant showed no error so the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the summary judgment.
(Overview summary)
Lucas E. Wilkinson, Appellant, vs. Farmers Holding Companies d/b/a Capital Sand, Inc., Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101268

Criminal

ShotSpotter data was okay 
Out-of-court declarations that a party offered for the truth of the matter declared, and that depended on the declarant’s credibility for probative value, constituted hearsay. But not when the declarant was a computer unguided by human entries. That described ShotSpotter technology as described by a witness detective. Therefore, the detective’s testimony about ShotSpotter data was not hearsay. And such testimony, when “limited to information included in and ascertainable from the ShotSpotter report [,]” constituted lay testimony and not expert testimony. The rule of completeness provided that admitting a part of a video recording made admissible the whole recording for context. But there was no other whole recording for context, because each video clip offered was triggered by a motion detector and complete in itself, not part of a continuous recording. Admitting videos of the video clips did not violate the best evidence rule because the content of the clips was not in dispute. Admitting the videos of the video clips was not an obvious error, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Davon R. Griffin-Curry, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113192

Family

No enforcement, no appeal of contempt ruling 
Judgments were not subject to appeal until final. Judgments of contempt were not final until enforced. For a judgment coercing compliance by threat of confinement, enforcement meant confinement or an evidentiary hearing on purgation and re-issuance of a warrant for commitment. The circuit court found the appellant in contempt for failure to comply with an order to pay college expenses or face jail time. But the circuit court had not enforced the order, so it was not subject to appeal. The accompanying award of attorney fees was subject to appeal but moot because the appellant paid it. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied a motion to stay the appeal as moot. 
(Overview summary)
Colleen L. Malone, Respondent, v. Jason B. Malone, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113508

Future harm analysis discussed 
Circuit courts could terminate parental rights on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and a preponderance of the evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests. The circuit court found grounds for termination in abuse, neglect, and failure to rectify. Challenging all but one of the grounds left a ground for termination unchallenged and required affirmation of the judgment. The likelihood of future harm was not an element of termination, required no findings of fact in addition to the statutory grounds and best interest analysis, and was subject to projection from past behavior. The circuit court relied on past physical injuries that experts testified could not have been accidental, the appellant parent’s denial of abuse, and the appellant’s refusal of services. The circuit court terminated parental rights and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
IN THE INTEREST OF: H.P. and A.P., children under seventeen years of age. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent v. T.R.K., Respondent-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39223, SD39224

No evidence, no record 
Termination of parental rights was the family law equivalent of the death penalty, a severe impact on a fundamental right. The Children’s Division had to attempt reunification of children with parents. An exception functioned as an equivalent to termination of parental rights for parents whom a circuit court found on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to have “subjected the child to a severe act or recurrent acts of physical, emotional or sexual abuse toward the child.” On such allegations by the juvenile officer, in an action for care and treatment against the appellant parent, the juvenile officer had the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence at an adjudication hearing and a separate dispositional hearing. The latter determined whether and what services were appropriate for reunification. The parent denied the allegations, the parties stipulated to entering reports into evidence, but the parent did not admit the truth of the reports’ content, and the circuit court did not take judicial notice. The reports only relayed allegations unsubstantiated in any way. Such a record did not support a judgment relieving the Children’s Division of attempts at reunification, but the circuit court found in favor of the juvenile officer so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In the interest of: I.J.L. and J.L.G.-G., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer vs. L.M.G.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88220 (Consolidated with WD88221)

Equalization payment was okay 
Appeal was possible from a final judgment. A final judgment in an action for dissolution divided all property and debt. That described allocating 100 percent of a corporation’s stock to one party so no separate allocation was necessary for “goodwill” or other “inherent value [.]” Expert evidence of the appropriate valuation methods for a corporation supported the circuit court’s choice, and evidence of a corporation’s earnings and cash flow constituted substantial evidence of the corporation’s value. The circuit court calculated an equalization payment accordingly, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In Re the Marriage of: Janice R. Rendleman vs. David G. Rendleman
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87855

Orders of protection

Harassment shown 
Full orders of protection could issue on allegations of harassment, the elements of which included conduct that caused substantial emotional distress with no legitimate purpose. The petitioner respondent supported those elements with records and testimony about unwelcome visits and communications, which the circuit court found credible, and which was due deference on appeal. The parties had to preserve errors in rulings by objecting contemporaneously and specifically. An exception for lack of opportunity to object did not apply when the appellant never raised the matter at all. The circuit court adjourned an evidentiary hearing part-way through, re-scheduled, and the appellant never objected, so those rulings were unpreserved for appeal. The circuit court granted the full order and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
M.J.R. vs. E.R.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87974

Personal injury

Record of safe driving was inadmissible 
The record showed that the appellant’s relevance objection was clear and specific enough to preserve error. In an action charging a truck driver with negligence, a record of good driving in the past was not probative of negligence at the time of the injury. The respondent’s emphasis on that evidence in closing demonstrated resulting prejudice. The circuit court abused its discretion and the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Keith Taylor, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. B&D Hauling, Inc., Defendant/Respondent, and Hurshel Head, Defendant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113578

Anti-SLAPP statute discussed 
The statute governing strategic lawsuits against public participation expedited the disposition of meritless actions intended to obstruct participation in governmental proceedings, authorized awards of attorney fees, and provided interlocutory appeals from judgments of dismissal without prejudice. That statute did not affect the elements of a claim for defamation and the appellant plaintiff did not show on appeal that the petition stated a claim for defamation. The circuit court dismissed the petition and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Brian Kirk vs. Grace Evangelical Church, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88127

Post-conviction

Abandonment did not require a remand 
Abandonment by appointed post-conviction counsel occurred when the movant had no part in the late filing of an amended motion. A conclusion that no abandonment occurred without a finding of movant participation in late filing constituted clear error. But the judgment exhaustively reviewed all claims in the amended and initial motions, so no remand was necessary, and appellate review of the claims was possible. Trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for choosing not to proffer a self-defense instruction when no evidence suggested that the victim was the initial aggressor. 
(Overview summary)
George Joyner, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113520

Remanded necessary for determination on timely filing 
Courts had to determine whether motions were timely filed because timely filing was an element of a claim and determined the circuit court’s authority. Timely filing was subject to stipulations of fact but not concession or waiver. No motion to amend was necessary to preserve the matter. Timely filing depended on the rule in effect on the date of the movant’s sentencing, not the date of filing. The record unmistakably showed abandonment by appointed counsel, an exception to the timely filing requirement. In the amended motion, the movant alleged timely filing of the pro se motion, but presented no evidence on that matter. Judicial notice of the right facts could have substituted, but the movant did not ask the circuit to take judicial notice of any facts. And driving times and holiday schedules could not have established a mailing date even by inference. The State’s proposed judgment concluding that the initial motion was timely filed did not constitute an admission of fact as to timely filing. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of the initial motion. 
(Overview summary)
Randy M. Taylor vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87850

Strategy on confession was sound 
When the record unmistakably showed that abandonment by appointed counsel caused untimely filing, no remand for an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included deficient performance, which evidence of a sound strategy negated. That described the trial counsel choice to downplay the movant’s confession by not including it in voir dire. Sound strategy included the defendant not testifying, as trial counsel advised, when such testimony would have given advantages to the State and none for the defense. Expert evidence on false confessions was inadmissible. It was also unnecessary because the jury had a video recording of the confession from which to assess its credibility. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
David A. Harris vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87651

Probate

Judgment in action for accounting affirmed 
A challenge to a finding as against the weight of the evidence had to identify a finding of fact necessary to the judgment. In an action for accounting against a personal representative, the issue was the decedent’s assets when the decedent died. The decedent’s assets seven years before the decedent’s death were irrelevant. The existence of consideration and other events seven years after the formation of a contract was irrelevant to the formation of the contract. Only a party to a contract could raise the Statute of Frauds as to that contract. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of a contract included the parties’ complete performance of that contract. The appellant also charged error in a finding of fact that did not occur, and substantial evidence was not necessary to support a finding not made. A proposed judgment setting forth the standard of proof did not preserve error as to the standard of proof. The appellant’s argument on appeal was insufficient to show judicial estoppel. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In the Estate of Sue Ann Hughes, Deceased, Melanie L. Edwards vs. Christopher W. Hughes, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sue Ann Hughes and Individually
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87892

Tax

Standing to raise constitutional challenges discussed
Courts addressed controversies that were justiciable, meaning ripe for adjudication and brought by a party with standing. Standing meant having a legally protected interest that was subject to a substantial controversy. One person could not challenge another person’s property tax assessment. “This principle applies regardless of whether the plaintiff is a corporation, next-door neighbor, or a school district.” School districts could litigate their own rights to proper assessment procedure by declaratory judgment and writ relief, but challenging someone else’s assessment was litigation of someone else’s rights. The constitutional provisions addressing due process of law, retrospective laws, and irrevocable special privileges and immunities protected citizens, not the State, its political subdivisions, and their officers. But the assessor had standing to enforce constitutional provisions addressing the assessor’s own authority, like the ban on statutory tax exemptions, the duty to assess property at fair market value, and to assess property uniformly. Constitutional provisions also delegated the method of determining fair market value to the General Assembly, and the assessor did not show that a credit for improvements would eventually create an exemption. Uniformity applied to rates per subclass, not to assessment methods or results. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed for lack of standing all claims of the intervenor school district and some claims of the appellant county assessor. As to the remaining claims, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the State Tax Commission.
(Overview summary)
David Cox, Appellant, and Park Hill School District, Appellant, vs. Grady Hotel Investments, LLC, and Missouri State Tax Commission, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101131