Case Summaries for Aug. 15-21, 2025

Civil | Criminal | Employment | Family | Post-conviction | Real estate

Civil

Dismissal for failure to prosecute reversed 
Circuit courts had inherent power to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to bring a case to trial or periods of inactivity without a valid excuse, but not at the price of favoring expedition over justice. Two and one-half years was not necessarily too long to bring the case to trial, and the parties were engaged in negotiations over discovery and settlement. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal for abuse of discretion and remanded the action for reinstatement. 
(Overview summary) 
Cassandra Murphy, Appellant, vs. Intensiva Hospital of Greater St. Louis, Inc., D/B/A Select Specialty Hospital, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112980

Criminal

Methods of identifying contraband substances discussed 
The state had to prove every element of the offenses charged. The offenses charged included possession of cocaine in crack form and methamphetamine. The state offered no laboratory analysis of the substances in the defendant’s possession to show what they were. And “an officer's testimony about the appearance of a substance other than marijuana has been found insufficient to establish that the substance was a particular contraband drug.” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed those two convictions and affirmed the rest. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Semaj J. Foster 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87121

Employment

Summary judgment for employer affirmed on discrimination claims 
Appellate courts reviewed judgments granting motions for summary judgments the same way that circuit courts ruled on motions for summary judgment: Summary judgment was due when the movant established facts, beyond genuine dispute, that entitled the movant to a favorable ruling. A party without the burden of proof could do so by negating an element of the non-moving party’s claim. Once that happened, the non-moving party had to raise a genuine dispute as to the movant’s facts, which required support in evidence admissible at trial. Non-moving plaintiff claimed gender- and age-based discrimination in pay, and retaliation for making those claims, which were forbidden under the Human Rights Act. Discrimination and retaliation were different events, so the allegations supporting the discrimination claims could not also support a retaliation claim. The plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether such discrimination occurred because the plaintiff filed only a “self-serving” and conclusory affidavit without alleging any difference in pay among similarly situated employees, or how the plaintiff knew about it, or any supporting citation to the summary judgment record. The circuit court entered summary judgment for the employer, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Jennifer Kubinak, Appellant, v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113153

Family

Repentance preserved parental rights 
Appellate courts had discretion to review a point relied on that did not comply with appellate rules. To grant a petition for adoption without the parents’ consent required termination of parental rights, which focused on the parent/child relationship. One parent’s relationship with the child remained strong personally despite financial neglect. Neglect did not necessarily constitute abandonment, because abandonment depended on the parent’s intent to abandon, which mere token contacts did not negate. But the circuit found meaningful contact and parental repentance, especially in the six months before the filing of the petition, and that finding had support in the record. That finding barred any grant of the petition and whether the circuit court erred in denying termination of the other parent’s rights was therefore moot. The circuit court denied the petition, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Matter of: K.W.C.B., now legally known as K.W.C.W., a Minor Child; D.S.B. vs. A.L.B. (Mother) and K.W.W., (Father) 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87594

Post-conviction

Strategy on impeachments was reasonable
On claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movants had to show prejudice resulting from substandard practice. Substandard practice could not be present when strategy was reasonable, as it presumptively was, even if another strategy was reasonable. Reasonable trial strategy included impeaching the testimony of one witness by a variety of methods. Reasonable trial strategy did not have to include using school records to show that the frequently truant witness was in school. An out-of-court identification of that witness was important during an investigation, but not at trial, so movant suffered no prejudice when trial counsel did not try to exclude that identification. Movant also suffered no prejudice when trial counsel did not impeach another witness with an inconsistent statement that the witness made 23 years after the events, was potentially harmful to the movant’s defense, was easily explained away, and did not negate other strong evidence of movant’s guilt. The circuit court denied relief, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.
MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38062

Real estate

No unlawful detainer against tenant 
Actions for unlawful detainer decided only the right to immediate possession, so the defendants could include wrongful possessors, including parties to rival contracts for the same space. The circuit court could assign credibility and weight to the parties’ testimony. But the defendant’s signature on the lease as “tenant,” and the respondent’s arguments in derogation of that fact required the Missouri Court of Appeals to “cherry-pick” around that fact, showing that the plaintiff’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence. Having raised that issue in a bench trial, the defendant preserved it for appeal, and no after-trial motion was necessary. The plaintiff did not show that any acquiescence in the judgment by the defendant, nor a later lease, mooted the appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. 
(Overview summary) 
Body Treats Etc., LLC, Respondent, vs. Matt Tarrillion, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113028