Case summaries for July 17-23, 2026

Civil | Contract | Criminal | Environmental | Insurance | Post-conviction | Real estate | Tax

Civil

Reading deposition at trial was okay 
The plaintiffs showed no prejudice from the grant of the defendant’s motion for continuance, and the record showed that the continuance benefitted the plaintiffs, so the circuit court did not err. Preserving error in a jury trial required more than a motion for new trial; it required a timely objection. Unpreserved error was subject to review only for discretionary plain error. Plain error review required a facial showing of obvious error. No error occurred when a party read into the record some excerpts from an expert’s deposition as the parties agreed, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. The circuit court entered judgment for defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
GILBERT MUCKE and AMY MUCKE, Appellants v. SRC CUSTOM HOMES, LLC, ET AL., Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39113

Dismissal as a sanction affirmed, attorney fees for frivolous appeal awarded 
The plaintiffs sued to collect fees and the defendant counterclaimed to enforce rights already assigned to a third party. For that, the plaintiffs sought and received a dismissal of the counterclaim as a sanction against baseless claims. The defendant did not show that such a motion and order had to follow the procedure for dismissal on other grounds or summary judgment. On appeal, mischaracterization of the record and briefing deficiencies showed bad faith. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and awarded damages against the defendant’s counsel to plaintiffs. 
(Overview summary) 
Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C., Respondent, v. Frederich Construction, Inc., Appellant, v. Louis J. Basso, P.C., Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113973

Evidence inadmissible at trial was okay for summary judgment 
“Summary judgment is not an extreme or drastic remedy.” It was owed to a defending party movant who negated an element of the claimant party’s theory by establishing in the prescribed format. The moving parties established facts by reference to supporting evidence and such evidence need not be admissible at trial to be admissible on summary judgment. Specifically, discovery materials like depositions, even from a different action, were admissible on summary judgment. Failure to deny and contradict the movant’s facts in the required format and with references to evidence constituted an admission. The elements of legal malpractice included proximate causation between an attorney’s negligence and the plaintiff’s damages, which required an examination of the case within the case. The case within that case was for deliberate indifference to a medical need. The defendant negated that element with evidence of their attention to the plaintiff’s condition. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Sheryl Gentry, Appellant, v. Craig J. Concannon, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113791

Contract

Quantum meruit instruction was erroneous 
In an action for breach of contract, the elements included damages. The plaintiff claimed that rents were due but offered no evidence of rental value, only of yearly operational costs. Instructions had to have support in the record. Instructions could not mislead or confuse jurors and departure from approved instructions raised a presumption of prejudicial error. The submitted instruction on quantum meruit used “and/or,” which “creates an internal inconsistency within the instruction.” It also omitted a required conjunction. The instruction required the jury to find whether a party delivered services greater than “a typical broker” of airplanes, but “typical” was not the subject of any evidence. And the description of services did not distinguish between those admittedly already compensated and those yet unpaid, resulting in a roving commission. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to breach of contract and remanded the judgment as to quantum meruit. 
(Overview summary) 
The Ritchie Group, LLC, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Air Sansone, LLC, Lieber Spirit, LLC, and Steve C. Lieber, Respondent/Cross-Appellants 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113745

Criminal

Sufficient evidence negated plain error review 
Failure to preserve error, by omission from a motion for new trial, left only review for plain error, in which the burden included showing that the defendant’s “rights will suffer so substantially from the error that a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.” Such was not the case where sufficient evidence supported the verdict. The defendant objected to the State’s argument that, in context, explained the law of self-defense in response to the defendant’s argument. The circuit court did not err in overruling the defendant’s objection. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the conviction. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ELIJAH N. WARD, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38988

Rape Shield Statute applied 
To preserve error in the exclusion of evidence, the ruling on a motion in limine was not enough. The parties had to offer the evidence at trial, or at least state that they intend to offer it. The circuit court’s statement that the ruling in limine would stand was then enough to preserve error. The Rape Shield Statute generally barred evidence of a victim’s prior complaints of sexual assault with limited exceptions. The exception for knowingly false allegations required more than an investigative report finding the prior allegation “unfounded.” The exception for closely connected circumstances had to be relevant to some fact at issue, which the defendant did not show. The judicially created “right to fair trial” exception did not apply to impeachment evidence. Curative admissibility allowed rebuttal of inadmissible evidence only, and the defendant did not show that he was rebutting inadmissible evidence. The circuit court did not bar evidence of the victim’s motivation to fabricate; the defense preferred not to pursue that line of inquiry. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joshua Wooten, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113976

Environmental

Denial of solid waste permit affirmed 
Permits from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources were necessary to operate solid waste facilities and denials were subject to review before the Administrative Hearing Commission. The applicants had first to pass a preliminary site inspection to show compliance with standards set forth by regulations. Those regulations addressed the composition of the site, protection of groundwater, and other matters. An internal manual addressing those regulations did not constitute an unpromulgated rule, because it added no obligations to the applicant, and the commission did not rely on that manual anyway. Substantial and competent evidence showed that the appellant applicant’s site for a solid waste facility did not comply with regulations. Briefing violations prevented the review of other charged errors. The Administrative Hearing Commission denied the application and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. 
CARDS RE HOLDCO, INC., Petitioner-Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MISSOURI ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION, Respondents-Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39190

Insurance

Products-completed operations hazard exclusion applied to deceptive opioid advertisement 
In actions for breach of a contract for insurance, the insured had the burden of proof on coverage, and the insurer had the burden of proof on an exclusion. Judicial definitions of policy provisions were controlling. The insurer’s liability policy excluded from coverage any injuries arising out of warranties and representations related to insured’s product. “Arising out of” was an unambiguous phrase meaning having causation in fact in. The insured’s umbrella and excess policies limited coverage to claims made and reported during the policies’ terms and the plaintiff did not timely make any claims. The circuit court denied relief to the plaintiff and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II a/k/a Opioid MDT II, Appellant, v. Ace American Insurance, et al., Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113635

Post-conviction

Abandonment inquiry was necessary 
Circuit courts could not extend the time for filing an amended motion after the time for filing had lapsed. Circuit courts’ authority over motions depended on compliance with, or an exception to, the timely filing requirement. Exceptions included abandonment by appointed counsel, which was presumed when the amended motion was late, and on which the circuit court had to make a determination. Unless abandonment already appeared in the record, or had support in an affidavit of appointed counsel, the circuit court had to conduct an inquiry and make findings of fact. None of those things happened, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded the motion to the circuit court to conduct an inquiry on abandonment. 
TERRANCE LAMONTE JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39268

Real estate

Dissolution of permanent injunction depended on equities 
To dissolve a permanent injunction constituted an attack on a final judgment, which rules narrowly allow when a judgment is “no longer equitable[.]” Equity did not turn solely on a change in law, but included facts unique to each case. An earlier permanent injunction in favor of the appellant landowners restricted neighboring respondent’s shooting range activities. A later statute purported to bar any such injunction. The circuit court erred in holding that the change in law alone was enough to support dissolution of the injunction. But, in the alternative, the circuit court also held that the equities favored dissolution based on findings of fact as to the effect of the range’s activities on landowners. The circuit court dissolved the injunction and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Glendale Shooting Club, Inc., Respondent v. William K. Landolt and Jeri F. Landolt, Appellants 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC101187

Public use was no bar to prescriptive easement 
The plaintiff stated a claim for a private easement only, not a public easement, even after moving to conform the pleadings to the evidence. On a claim for a private prescriptive easement, the plaintiff’s burden of proof included showing an adverse use, which the law presumed whenever a use was contrary to the owner’s rights. Such use did not have to include a claim of full ownership, and need not have been intentional, nor exclusive. But the use did have to be individual, meaning distinctive from other persons’ uses. The plaintiff supported that element with evidence that the plaintiff used the disputed alley to receive deliveries for the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff’s belief that the alley was a public space did not negate that evidence. The circuit court denied the plaintiff’s claim, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Louis Klingert, Appellant, v. Fred Lee, Nancy Lee, et al., Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113803

Tax

Historic tax credits were not subject to earnings tax 
The tax protest procedure was mandatory when the collector assessed disputed taxes, but not when taxpayers filed self-assessed tax by filing a return later rejected. The refund procedure was an alternative to payment under protest. The taxpayer’s returns, showing a refund due, constituted applications for refund. Historic tax credits did not constitute earned income and so were not subject to a city’s earnings tax. 
(Overview summary) 
Laurel Apartments Master Tenant, LLC, and Laurel Hotel Master Tenant, LLC, Respondents, v. City of St. Louis, Missouri and Gregory F.X. Daly, Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, Appellants 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113753