Case summaries for May 29-June 4, 2026

Administrative | Appellate | Family | Local government | Orders of protection

Administrative

Tort Victims Compensation Fund payments pro-rated, claims for balances dismissed
When the amount in the Tort Victims Compensation Fund fell short of payments due for the year, the fund paid victims on a pro rata basis. Payments from the fund were subject to determination by the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation, and division determinations were subject to review by decision of the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Appellant claimants did not seek review of the division’s determination before the commission and challenged that determination in circuit court. The claimants thus “brushed aside” an administrative remedy that they had to exhaust before seeking review in the courts. In circuit court, the division and the commission both had the capacity to sue and be sued under their official names, which generally constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity. But statutes governing the fund specifically provided that the unpaid amounts did not constitute a claim. “Any award pursuant to this subsection that cannot be paid due to a lack of funds appropriated for payment of claims of uncompensated tort victims shall not constitute a claim against the state.” That language constituted a specific reservation of sovereign immunity. The circuit court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and under sovereign immunity, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Louise Jones, et al., Appellants, v. Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, et al., Respondents
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101256

Sunshine Law expenses limited
The Open Meetings/Open Records Act provided that a public governmental body could file an action for declaratory judgment to determine the opening of records “at the expense of that public governmental body.” The act also provided an award of litigation expenses in actions to judicially enforce the act against a knowing or purposeful failure to disclose. In such an action, the parties settled, and the circuit court incorporated those provisions into its judgment. When the city failed to comply with the judgment, the requester filed a contempt action for judicial enforcement of the judgment and for an award of litigation expenses. The circuit court denied the award of expenses because the circuit court found that the failure to comply was not willful, not knowing, and not contumacious. That finding was subject to deference on appeal, so the contempt action could not include litigation expenses. And the contempt action was filed by the requester as a “subsequent and separate cause of action" from the city’s declaratory judgment action, so the contempt action was not “at the expense of that public governmental body.” The circuit court denied relief, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
CITY OF VIENNA, Petitioner-Respondent v. SHERIFF HAROLD C. HEITMAN, Respondent-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39019

Appellate

Appellant sanctioned over brief generated by artificial intelligence
“[P]ro se appellants have successfully argued and won appeals in this Court using freely accessible caselaw.” Appeals from circuit court judgments began with notices of appeal. Notices of appeal had to specify the judgment appealed. The appellants had to assemble and file the record including the legal file and transcripts. The appellants had to brief their challenges to circuit court rulings in a prescribed format that protected judicial impartiality, including appendices, a table of contents, a statement of facts, points relied on conforming to a prescribed template, and arguments. Arguments had to refer to the record and cite authority. Authorities cited in the appellant’s arguments were fictitious opinions generated by artificial intelligence, which constituted a fraud on the courts and a waste of the respondent’s resources. After notice and an opportunity to correct, the Missouri Court of Appeals sanctioned the appellant with an award of attorney fees and dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Terrina Boatner, Appellant, v. Tina Hickerson, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113978

Family

Claim for modification of custody and support stated
On dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim, the movant could decline to amend the petition and appeal. As to an award of joint physical custody, a motion to deprive a party of previously awarded custodial status had to allege a substantial change in circumstances. But a motion only to adjust parenting time did not have to allege a “substantial” change in circumstances, it had only to allege a change that made some provision of the parenting time unreasonable. The latter characterized the movant’s allegations because the movant alleged that a change in employment made the movant better available for more parenting time. The movant also alleged that child wanted to reside with child’s half- or step-siblings, and to learn more about farming, both of which were possible at the movant’s residence. Those allegations negated the circuit court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Dismissal for discovery violations had no support in the record because, though the circuit court mentioned it when addressing the parties, it was not in the judgment and the respondent did not ask for it. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal and the accompanying award of attorney fees, and it remanded the action.
(Overview summary)
E.H. By His Next Friend Joseph Waltemath and Joseph Waltemath, Individually v. Shelby Herbert
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88121

Local government

Jury required in de novo appeal from municipal division
In municipal division, the defendant had no right to a jury in the trial of a local infraction. Appeal from the municipal division’s ruling was by trial de novo in circuit court, where the defendant always had the right to a jury on timely request. “In both procedural and substantive terms, a trial de novo in the circuit court of a prosecution first initiated in the municipal court for the violation of a city ordinance proceeds as an original cause in the circuit court.” Whether the ordinance had a statutory equivalent was irrelevant. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition barring the circuit court from denying the relator’s request for a jury.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, ex rel., Christopher Bank, Relator, v. The Honorable William Bynes, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114506

Orders of protection

No threat necessary to support full order
The Child Protection Orders Act addressed abuse by household members and stalking by any person, including persons outside the household. The elements of stalking included a child’s, or a parent’s, reasonable fear of physical danger to the child. The plaintiff showed both with evidence of the children’s reactions to, and the parents’ protective measures against, the appellant’s conduct. No physical confrontation or threat was necessary. The circuit court issued a full order of protection and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.  
(Overview summary)
C.W. for Minors F.R.W. and B.L.W. v. Kevin Herlihy
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88264