Case summaries for May 1-7, 2026

Appellate | DWI | Family | Probate | Local government

Appellate

No final judgment, no appeal 
“With exceptions not applicable here, ‘[a] final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review.’” A final judgment was one denominated as a judgment and disposing of all issues as to all parties. In an action against two defendants, the circuit court dismissed a claim against one defendant but did not dispose of any claim against the other, and the circuit court did not denominate the dismissal as a judgment. A later ruling, denominated as a judgment, denied a motion to re-open but did not change that result. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
GWEN WOOD, AN INDIVIDUAL, and G.L. MOORE PKG., INC., A MISSOURI CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., and TIM ADKISSON, Defendants-Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39135

Appeal from summary judgment explained 
On summary judgment, once the movant established the facts material to its theory, the respondent could avoid summary judgment only by raising a genuine dispute as to at least one such fact. In circuit court, disputes of fact came into the record only as prescribed by the governing rule. The governing rule barred reliance on a party’s own pleadings. That rule further required any response to a motion for summary judgment to either follow a prescribed format — by numbered paragraph with support in admissible evidence — or be deemed to have admitted the numbered paragraph’s allegations. Appellate review of summary judgment was de novo so, on appeal, the same facts had to appear in the statement of facts in appellants’ brief. The appellant’s brief also had to set forth a preservation statement and points relied on that included a legal ground for reversal. The appellant failed to comply with those requirements, admitted material facts, and put no material fact in genuine dispute. The Missouri Court of Appeals could not conduct appellate review and, if it did, appellant could not prevail. The Court of Appeals dismissed a non-conforming point and the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Jill Van Deel, Appellant, v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, and Byron Cornell Jeffries, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED114002

DWI

Administrative DWI records were subject to expungement 
Circuit courts had to order the expungement of any criminal record on the filing of a petition. And any State entity receiving such an order had to close any criminal or administrative record related to any offense listed in the petition. The petitioner driver pleaded guilty to careless and imprudent driving, but the State initially charged the driver with driving while intoxicated, which was also the subject of administrative proceedings before the Missouri Director of Revenue. Because those proceedings were related to the criminal action, the director of revenue had to close administrative records of driving while intoxicated. The circuit court erred in ruling otherwise, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action, instructing the circuit court to order the closure of the administrative records. 
(Overview summary)
S.E., Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113932

Family

Attorney fees award affirmed 
Challenges to a judgment as unsupported by substantial evidence, or against the weight of the evidence, required the appellants to include a discussion of evidences and inferences favoring the judgment. The appellant failed to do, rendering the appellant’s analysis useless. Service on “John Doe” by publication was adequate for personal jurisdiction when the appellant refused to identify John Doe and waived any defense by failing to timely raise it. The circuit court’s 10-page detailed findings of fact, and earlier orders, showed careful consideration of the statutory factors applicable to custody determinations with supporting evidence. The circuit court could deny access to the children’s medical and educational records when it denied custody and an award of visitation did not change that result. The appellant’s repetitive motions, some almost identical to motions already denied, supported an award of attorney fees to respondent. The presumed child support amount covered children’s educational expenses so a separate amount attributed to educational expenses, but not characterized as extraordinary, was duplicative. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, except as to the duplicative expenses. 
(Overview summary)
In Re the Matter of: David Eade vs. Jennifer Kennedy
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD88017 Respondent Consolidated with WD88018

Probate

Start challenges with the latest trust instrument 
Statutes provided a safe harbor under which a trust instrument’s no-contest clause was subject to challenge without enforcement of the clause. The grantor enacted an initial trust and two amendments, and all three instruments had no-contest provisions. The initial trust and each amendment created a new trust instrument. “[A] validity challenge must start with the current operative trust instrument and work backwards.” Nevertheless, in an action for declaratory judgment contesting the amendments, the circuit court entered judgment against the plaintiffs for failure to challenge the initial instrument and its no-contest provision. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary)
Rebecca Chipman, et al. vs. Jack Dougherty, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88246

Local government

State pre-empted firearm storage provision in unattended vehicle ordinance 
Controversies over legislative provisions could be ripe for determination without prosecution pending. “Cases presenting predominantly legal questions are particularly amenable to a conclusive determination in a pre-enforcement context, and generally require less factual development.” That described the validity of a city ordinance under which the city prosecuted plaintiff but dismissed the action without prejudice. The General Assembly expressly pre-empted “the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms” and barred any ordinance that addressed “‘keeping,’ ‘possession,’ or ‘transportation’ of firearms[.]” Those terms included storage, so a city ordinance purported to govern the storage of firearms in unattended vehicles. The circuit court held the ordinance invalid and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Michael Roth, Respondent, v. City of Saint Louis, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113811