Case Summaries for May 30-June 5, 2025

Administrative | ADR | Appellate | Civil | Criminal | DWI | Employment security | Evidence | Post-conviction | Real estate | Tax

Administrative

Litigation expenses waived 
Statutes allowed an award of litigation expenses, including attorney fees, against administrative agencies. Any such award was subject to waiver by clear, unambiguous, unmistakable, and conspicuous language. Licensee’s settlement with a licensing agency included the following. “Licensee knowingly and voluntarily waives each and every one of … the various rights and privileges afforded her by law, including … the right to potentially recover attorney’s fees incurred in defending this action against her license.” “Licensee, together with her heirs and assigns and her attorney(s), do[es] hereby waive … any claims for attorney’s fees and expenses, including any claims pursuant to [the statute.]” That language met the standard for a waiver of expenses including expenses not yet incurred when the licensee executed the agreement. And the time to file an application for expenses started when the licensee first prevailed by final disposition, which was in circuit court, because the circuit court reversed the agency for lack of substantial evidence. 
(Overview summary) 
Dana Casnocha-Jones vs. State Board of Nursing 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87448

ADR

Arbitration agreement unenforceable as to one appellant 
Consideration for arbitration agreements could appear in related documents contemporaneously executed. The parties executed their arbitration agreement contemporaneously with a retail installment contract so the considerations in the retail installment contract supported the arbitration agreement. The seller was a party to the arbitration agreement through the seller’s representative’s signature and continued to apply to the seller after the seller assigned its rights because the arbitration agreement said so. As to an appellant whom the circuit court found was not a party to the arbitration agreement, that appellant did not challenge that finding and so did not show any error. 
(Overview summary) 
Ashley Dill, Respondent, vs. Jason Hale and Autocenters Bonne Terre, LLC., Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113090

Appellate

Unappealed ruling required affirmation 
The appellant plaintiff’s claim had several elements, the circuit court found for respondent defendants on more than one, and the appellant failed on appeal to challenge by a point relied on one of those rulings. That one unchallenged ruling constituted an unappealed basis for the circuit court’s judgment, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Savana Atkisson vs. Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87209

Judgment was final without interest rate 
The time to file a notice of appeal stated with the entry of a final judgment. A judgment that did not recite the statutory rate of post-judgment interest was nevertheless final. The notice of appeal was untimely, and untimely filing vested no jurisdiction in the Missouri Court of Appeals, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded the action to circuit court for an award of attorney fees on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Matthew Valdivia vs. State of Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87022

Civil

No good cause to set aside default 
The elements of an action to set aside a default judgment, separate from the underlying defaulted action, included good cause for the default. Good cause included negligence but not recklessness. The defendant alleged that, despite proper service on the defendant’s registered agent, the registered agent failed to notify the defendant. The defendant did not show that those allegations described anything less than recklessness so the circuit court did not err in refusing to set aside the default. 
(Overview summary) 
Hazelcrest I & II Condominium Association, Appellant, v. 7520 Hazel Crest LLC, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112810

Criminal

Possession not shown 
The defendant was a felon barred from possessing a firearm. The elements of possession of an item included knowledge of the item’s nature and control over the item. Possession could be sole or joint. Joint control of an automobile raised a presumption of joint possession of the automobile’s contents if “there is additional evidence connecting [the defendant] with the items.” The defendant’s passenger had a firearm to sell but nothing showed that the defendant even knew of the firearm’s presence. “Missouri cases have consistently held that nervousness alone is an insufficient ‘additional incriminating circumstance’ to sustain a conviction for possession of [contraband.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the action for entry of an acquittal. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. AMANDA JOY ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38552

Errors waived
On charges properly joined, severance was within the circuit court’s discretion, which the circuit court did not abuse when keeping together allegations of transactions connected in a common scheme. And partial acquittal negated prejudice. A statement of “no objection” to proffered evidence waived plain error review. No plain error occurred when the circuit court failed to intervene sua sponte in a witness’s identification of evidence. Evidence of a high-speed chase was admissible for a complete and coherent picture of the circumstances, “probative as to quality and depth of defendant’s consciousness of guilt[,]” and not outcome determinative. As to impermissibly inconsistent verdicts, an objection was due before the circuit court discharged the jury, and a strategic choice against objecting waived even plain error review. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Ahmad R. Herring 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86413

DWI

Probable cause supported without report 
In an administrative action, the Missouri Director of Revenue revoked a driver’s license for driving while intoxicated. On de novo review in circuit court, the elements that the director had to show included probable cause to arrest driver. On that element, the circuit court’s finding was subject to appellate review for sufficient admissible evidence. Sufficient admissible evidence of probable cause to arrest the appellant included driver’s speeding, open containers, admissions of consuming alcohol, and inability to focus on instructions. The Missouri Court of Appeals did not have to decide whether the report of a law enforcement officer present at, but not making, the arrest was admissible. 
(Overview summary) 
Christopher Schmitz, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112719

Employment security

Voluntary quit not shown 
Employment security benefits were unavailable to claimants who quit work without good cause attributable to the job or the employer. On that matter, findings of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission received deference. That employer never told the claimant that the claimant was fired was not, alone, determinative. The commission found that employer replaced the claimant while the claimant was medically unable to work. Neither the claimant’s engagement in the procedures under the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor the date that employer kept the claimant on the books, altered that result. 
(Overview summary) 
Milissa A. Bohanna & Division of Employment Security vs. United Fruit & Produce Company 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87312

Evidence

Expert testimony on trauma experience was generalized 
The defendant’s timely objection and post-trial motion preserved an evidentiary ruling for abuse-of-discretion review. Particularized expert evidence on trauma related to the victim’s credibility and was inadmissible. Generalized expert testimony on trauma related to the behaviors of trauma victims generally and was admissible. The latter characterized the state’s expert testimony about the expert’s experience with trauma. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Anthony D. Brooks, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112288

Delayed disclosure was relevant 
All evidence had to be relevant logically, meaning that it proved or disproved an allegation, including by showing a witness’s credibility. The credibility of the victim was at issue because the victim delayed reporting the defendant’s offenses for several years, and the disputed evidence explained why, which supported the victim’s testimony describing the defendant’s offenses. That testimony alone was sufficient to convict defendant so defendant could not show that the evidence was outcome determinative. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ALAN KEITH GILLIAM, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38592

Post-conviction

Misadvice on collateral consequences shown 
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice resulting from substandard performance. A guilty plea and expression of satisfaction with plea counsel reduced waived all matters except the qualities of the plea, including whether the plea was voluntary, which could be affected by misadvice. No advice was due, but any advice given had to be correct, as to the collateral consequences of conviction. Collateral consequences of the movant’s conviction included a 120-day program, as to which the record refuted the movant’s allegations. The collateral consequences of conviction also included sex offender registration for life, while plea counsel said that registration could end after ten years, so an evidentiary hearing was due. 
(Overview summary) 
Bryan K. Reid, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112621

Closed records would not have helped 
In a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, reasonable strategic choices negated the element of substandard performance. On allegations that trial counsel failed to investigate closed child abuse records, counsel already knew about the records, the defense had no right to them, and the movant did not show that the records would have helped. And trial counsel made a reasonable strategic choice that did not require those records, or a psychologist’s diagnosis, to impeach child victims. The movant did not show good grounds to dismiss for prosecutorial vindictiveness, so a motion would have been meritless, and effective counsel did not have to file a meritless motion. Points relied on that charged due process violations by the circuit court were deficient in that they cited no ruling charged as error. 
(Overview summary) 
Michael L. Oglesby vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86535

Real estate

Nuisance judgment affirmed 
In actions for nuisance, statute gave standing to owners of property within a specified distance from an alleged nuisance property. That described non-profit plaintiff. The circuit court’s “thoughtful, logical, and legally proper” discovery showed neither any unreasonable search or seizure nor any due process violation. The record refuted, and the defendant appellant did not object to, any violation of due process during trial. Photographs showed “glaring and obvious” violations of city ordinances and no expert testimony was necessary for the circuit court to make its conclusions. 
(Overview summary) 
Neighborhood Legal Support of Kansas City vs. Robert Ontman 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87057

Tax

Federal tax status irrelevant to earnings tax 
A city earnings tax levied on all gross receipts from any enterprise within the city including owning and renting real property. The taxpayer’s election to structure itself as a real estate investment trust for federal tax purposes did not alter that result, and expenses required to maintain that status were not business operating expenses. But delays in the city’s resolution of those arguments supported an abatement of penalties. Interest applied to amounts unpaid. 
(Overview summary) 
Ventas, Inc. vs. City of Kansas City, Missouri, Finance Department, Revenue Division 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87288