Case summaries for Aug. 8-14, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Post-conviction

Appellate

No supreme court jurisdiction over preliminary injunction 
Constitutional provisions barred enforcement of statutes restricting abortion, so plaintiffs brought an action seeking an injunction against enforcement of those statutes, and the circuit court issued a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction was subject to appeal by the state, and the Supreme Court of Missouri had exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional issues, which the plaintiffs’ action raised. But preliminary injunctions preserved the status quo, and constituted only an interlocutory order, on evidence and argument not fully developed. And the appellate review was for an abuse of discretion in the preliminary injunction, not constitutional validity. The Supreme Court of Missouri transferred the appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. 
(Overview summary) 
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Appellants. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101176

Judgment not final 
Appellate review was possible from judgments that were final, meaning they disposed of all claims as to all parties. The plaintiff sought damages, interest, and equitable relief. The circuit court ruled on damages only, so its judgment disposed of less than all issues and was not final. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100999

Judgment not final while claims remained for trial 
Appellate review was possible from judgments that were final, meaning that they disposed of all claims as to all parties. The plaintiff sought damages, interest, and equitable relief. Circuit courts should try legal matters to a jury first and reserve equitable matters for bench trial. The circuit court ruled on damages only, so its judgment disposed of less than all issues and was not final. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Kevin Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, Respondent-Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100998

Civil

No personal jurisdiction 
Summary judgment was due movants who established, beyond genuine dispute, facts that entitled the movant to a favorable judgment. That described the defendant New York resident, who negated an element of the plaintiff class’s claim by showing that the circuit court had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant as described in Missouri’s long-arm statute. That statute required proof of certain activities in Missouri, like owning real property or making a contract or committing tortious conduct, none of which applied to the defendant. The defendant showed that title to the loans at issue, proceeds from those loans, and the instruments securing the loans were in a distinctive type of trust governed by Delaware statutes. Those trusts’ grant to the defendant of further security interests in, and possession of documents, related to the loans did not alter that result; nor did the choice of law favoring Missouri law, nor the defendant’s status as trustee. All of the defendant trustee activities occurred outside Missouri. And the tortious conduct allegedly done in Missouri was not done by the defendant, nor by an agent of the defendant, but by a separate entity that independently contracted with the defendant. The circuit court’s judgment ruled that the circuit court had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the circuit court certified the judgment for appeal with no just reason for delay. The Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in favor of reviewing the sole, multifarious point and affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Jeffrey Cox, et al. vs. The Bank of New York Mellon 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87512

Res judicata barred a later motion to set aside default 
The doctrine of res judicata barred the re-litigation of any claim, so any action either “brought forward” “every point properly belonging to the subject matter of litigation [that the plaintiff], exercising reasonable diligence, might have at the time [,]” or face the bar of res judicata. That described the judgment appealed: it denied plaintiff’s later motion to set aside a default judgment, which sought the same relief as in plaintiff’s first motion to set aside the same default judgment. Filing the motions under separate rules did not change that result. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Xtra Lease LLC, Respondent, v. United Trans Logistics, Inc., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113144

Criminal

Corpus delicti rule was not substantive 
“[T]he state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt begins and ends with the statutory elements of the crime and applicable sentence.” The corpus delicti rule required some slight evidence, other than the defendant’s confession, that the victim died from a criminal act. But that was a rule of evidence and not of substantive law. The elements of murder in the first degree included deliberation, which the state satisfied with evidence from before, during, and after the murder: acrimonious relations, messages planning and describing a murder, biological evidence, a cover-up, and flight from law enforcement. The elements of kidnapping in the first degree included removal or confinement for a substantial period, and did not include an added danger to, and not a mere incident to, another offense. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions with a remand to conform the written sentence to the sentence as spoken by order nunc pro tunc. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Curtis Winter, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100847

Post-conviction

Challenges to enhanced sentence rejected 
The defendant’s sentence was subject to enhancement for earlier convictions without limit as to recency. Whether the evidence supported enhancement was a matter for direct appeal, not for post-conviction relief, and the movant offered no supporting evidence at the evidentiary hearing on the motion. Evidence and argument on a theory not pleaded could not cure the pleading. The movant did not show that later case law applied retroactively. 
DONALD WAYNE McMANNIS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38558

No authority when initial motion filed late 
Circuit courts had no authority to rule on the merits of a motion filed out of time, with few exceptions, among which were third party interference caused the filing to be late. But such allegations had to appear in the movant’s filings and the movant alleged no such facts. The circuit court nevertheless ruled on an amended motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action for the circuit court to dismiss the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Douglas Luttrell, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113120