Case summaries for May 31-June 6, 2024

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Employment | Evidence | Miscellaneous actions | Personal injury | Real estate | Schools

Appellate

Point relied on not preserved
The exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial, especially when appellant referred to that evidence in closing argument. The circuit court sua sponte dismissed a party, respondents referred to that party’s absence in closing argument, and appellant objected to neither occurrence. On appeal, appellant challenged the circuit court’s failure to intervene sua sponte as to the closing argument, but was really complaining about the dismissal, and failed to preserve error as to both. And appellant had no standing to challenge another party’s dismissal.
JERRY KEITH BAKER, individually and as successor co-trustee, Appellants vs. MICHAEL DENNIS BAKER, individually and as successor co-trustee, and DEVIN BAKER, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38065

Civil

No appeal by motion to vacate
A judgment not appealed was enforceable except for lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction was grounds for a motion to vacate, but appellant’s motion to vacate charged mere legal error, which addressed statutory authority and not jurisdiction. The motion constituted a collateral attack on the judgment, so the circuit court did not err in denying the motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
(Overview summary)
Deborah Bowlin vs. Jason A. Stevens
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86671

No facts established
To prevail on summary judgment, the movant had to establish, beyond genuine dispute, facts that entitled the movant to a favorable judgment as a matter of law. For a defending party such facts included the claimant party’s inability to prove an element of the claim despite the passage of a reasonable time for discovery. To establish such facts, the movant defending party offered discovery responses that only raised objections. Objects to discovery do not establish any facts. Movant therefore failed to show entitlement to anything. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the movant. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the action.
RONALD PARKER, a Single Person, and LYNN PARKER, a Single Person, and CARL and DEBBIE HORTON, Husband and Wife, and DOG PAW TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CASTLE VIEW COUNTY CLUB, INC., a Missouri Not for Profit Corporation, in Good Standing, Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38186

Criminal

Clemency order rescinded
A writ of prohibition remedied actions in excess of jurisdiction. Constitutional provisions granted the power of clemency in the governor only. An earlier governor granted a reprieve of defendant’s sentence, which constituted temporary relief, so a later governor had authority to rescind that reprieve. Statute, under which the earlier governor instituted a procedure to make further determinations on clemency for defendant, operated at the sole discretion of the governor and vested no due process rights in defendant. That statute did not limit the governor’s “absolute discretion” so the later governor could terminate that procedure. In those matters, no circuit court had any jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Missouri issued its writ of prohibition preventing the circuit court from doing anything other than granting the later governor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
(Overview summary)
State ex rel. Governor Michael L. Parson, Relator, v. The Honorable Cotton Walker, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100352

Partially final criminal judgment subject to no appeal
In a criminal action, judgment is final and subject to appeal when the circuit court imposes sentence on all counts, so a judgment is not final when any one count is not final. Circuit court found the driver guilty on all counts and imposed sentence on all but one count, as to which the circuit court suspended imposition of sentence, and imposed probation. Because of that one count, the judgment is not final, so the Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal as premature as to all counts. “[U]pon completion or revocation of probation, the judgment will become final, and [defendant] may then appeal."
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Paul W. Bodenhamer, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100254

Employment

No judicial estoppel from social security disability to disability discrimination
Appellate courts reviewed summary judgment de novo. Movant prevailed if movant established facts beyond genuine dispute that entitled movant to a favorable judgment, which defendant may do by showing that plaintiff cannot establish an element of plaintiff’s claim. In an action under the Human Rights Act, the plaintiff employee claimed disability discrimination and hostile work environment by harassment, for which the elements include a recognized disability. The circuit court erred in applying judicial estoppel from employee Social Security disability application to bar employee from establishing a disability under the act, because the standards are different, specifically as to reasonable accommodation. And, as to discrimination, statute provided that, once employee established a prima facie case of, a burden-shifting analysis was deemed highly persuasive as to a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for negative job action that was not pretextual. On those material facts, employee raised a genuine dispute. Also, as to hostile work environment, the elements included abusive work conditions by severe and pervasive conditions, as to which employee raised a genuine dispute with evidence of “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Employee further claimed retaliation for making a complaint under the act, for which the elements included causation between the complaint and the adverse employment action, but defendant employer established that there was no such connection, and employee did not raise a genuine dispute. In addition, employee claimed retaliation for asserting rights under workers’ compensation laws, and showed reports of work-related injuries, but did not establish a causal relationship. Therefore, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for employer, and remanded the action to circuit court.
(Overview summary)
James Raymond King, Appellant, vs. Missouri American Water Co., Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111783

Evidence

No prejudice from hearsay
Appellate courts reviewed for error but reversed only for error that caused prejudice. Hearsay was generally inadmissible because the declarant as not subject to cross-examination. Admitting hearsay was error, but the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination on the hearsay matter, so no prejudice occurred. Defendant did not raise an additional objection of improper bolstering in circuit court, and so failed to preserve that additional objection for appeal, leaving only plain error review. Because the testimony caused no prejudice, the testimony could not have caused manifest injustice, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. CHARLES KENNETH MULVERHILL, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38053

Miscellaneous actions

Probable cause in malicious prosecution explained
On a motion for summary judgment, defendant could prevail by negating an element of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution was subject to a standard of proof higher than usual, strict and clear proof, correspondingly reducing movant defendant’s burden when negating an element of the claim. The elements of a claim for malicious prosecution included lack of probable cause for all the counts in the underlying action, so defendant needed evidence supporting just one count of the underlying action to negate the claim for malicious prosecution, and did not have to persuade the circuit court to find the facts as alleged in the underlying action. The defendants’ audit report constituted evidence of probable cause against the plaintiff, supporting the underlying action, and negating an element of the plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution. The malicious prosecution claim was the basis for the plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, so the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendant on both claims.
(Overview summary)
Dale R. Ludwig vs. Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council, Missouri Soybean Association, and Foundation for Soy Innovation
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86326

Personal injury

Official immunity applied
A judgment on the pleadings was appropriate “only if the facts pleaded by the petitioner, together with the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, show that petitioner could not prevail under any legal theory” and an appellate court reviewed that ruling de novo. Individuals could claim immunity from suit when sued over government work: when sued in an official capacity, sovereign immunity; and when sued in an individual capacity, official immunity. Official immunity protects an individual from liability when exercising discretion, but not clerical duties. Safety measures and training as required by department manuals were discretionary and not clerical. “Malice, or the actual intent to cause injury, is the only mental state to which official immunity does not apply under Missouri law,” and the plaintiffs’ mere conclusory assertions of malice did not describe malice. The circuit court erred in denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings so the Supreme Court of Missouri makes permanent its writ of prohibition barring the circuit court from doing anything other than granting that motion.
(Overview summary)
State ex rel. Michael J. Love, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Respondent. State ex rel. Gary Ludwick, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent. State ex rel. Kristina Jordan, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent. State ex rel. James Henson, Relator, vs. the Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, St. Louis County, Division 3, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100197, SC100198, SC100199, and SC100200

Real estate

Common law dedication and prescriptive easement made road public
Common law dedication of a roadway to public use was a theory of estoppel. It occurred through the public’s exercise of such interest and the owner’s intent to create such an interest adverse to the owner’s interest. The owner’s intent could manifest in conduct or words but must be unequivocal. Such unequivocal evidence included 80 years of unrestricted public use, the wishes of underlying landowners express and implied, and continuous public maintenance. The elements of a claim for a public prescriptive easement include adverse use but adverse use without an explanation of its origin raised a presumption of a permissive origin. “A long and continuous use justifies the presumption of adversity[.]” The judgment’s description of the disputed land by reference to exhibits was sufficient, including a gravel bar exposed at low water, for which the pleadings were conformed to the evidence. Those conclusions mooted review of other theories. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
DAVID ROMANO, et al., Respondents v. MIKE R. & CARLA ADAMS, et al., Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37377

Common law dedication and prescriptive easement made road public
In a claim for a public prescriptive easement, the elements include continuous, uninterrupted, visible, and adverse use of the land for ten years. Evidence that the use was open, continuous, visible, and uninterrupted use for ten years raises a presumption that the use was adverse without regard to whether the owner had knowledge of it. Such evidence included 30 years of regular use by residents and visitors. Rebuttal requires evidence that use was permissive, of which appellant owners offered none. The circuit court did not err in ruling that a public prescriptive easement ran through appellants’ land.
DICK PORTON, AMY PORTON, and NATHAN ATCHISON, Respondents v. KEITH BOX and SARAH BOX, Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37755

Schools

Defendant’s JNOV reversed in transgender discrimination claim
In an action under the Human Rights Act for sex discrimination by a school district, the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of field trip room assignments that was cumulative of other evidence. The circuit court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff’s earlier unsuccessful action for mandamus because the standards were different and would have confused the jury. But the circuit court erred in entering a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff. Appellate courts sustained a judgment notwithstanding the verdict only on “a complete absence of” “legal and substantial evidence [that] supports each fact essential to liability.” Facts essential to liability included: membership in a protected class, which plaintiff supported with evidence that plaintiff was transgender female to male; denial of access to a district facility because of that status, which plaintiff showed with evidence that the district denied plaintiff access to a male locker room; and a “contributing factor” link between the status and the denial, which plaintiff showed with evidence of sex stereotyping in the form of reliance on genitalia. “The same evidence supporting the discrimination claim can also support a claim for punitive damages.” The Missouri Court of Appeals reverses and remands to enter judgment for plaintiff and determine an award of attorney fees.
(Overview summary)
R.M.A. vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD85778