Case summaries for August 16-22, 2024

ADR | Administrative | Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Employment | Evidence | Insurance | Personal injury | Real Estate

ADR

No standing to compel arbitration
In an action for breach of contract, the circuit court denied a motion to compel arbitration. That order was subject to appeal, like other orders and judgments, by statute that gave standing to an aggrieved party. An aggrieved party was a party adversely affected as to an immediate interest. No such interest was at stake for one appellant that was not a party to the contract, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as to that appellant. As to the other appellant, the circuit court correctly ruled that the transactions at issue were not within the contract containing the arbitration clause because, though the contract allowed the parties to extend the contract to cover more transactions, they never did so in writing as the Federal Arbitration Act required for enforcement.
(Overview summary)
Nelson Trucking, LLC vs. K&M Translogic, LLC and KM Diesel & Tire Services, LLC
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED86571

Administrative

Prisoner Litigation Reform Act versus Sunshine Law
Sunshine Law required state agencies to produce documents. The plaintiff alleged that the Missouri Department of Corrections only partially complied with an open records request. Prisoner Litigation Reform Act required the plaintiff, before filing an action — including an action to enforce the Sunshine Law — in circuit court, to exhaust administrative remedies. Administrative remedies within the department included an internal grievance procedure. That procedure was not the subject of any allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings and earlier withdrawn requests for records were no substitute. The plaintiff’s pleadings did not show that the circuit court had authority to hear the plaintiff’s Sunshine Law action, so the circuit court did not err in dismissing that action and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirms the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Gregory Hill-Bey, Appellant, vs. David Vandergriff, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111649

Appellate

Appeal was moot
The plaintiff brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunction to bar the enforcement of a moratorium on real estate development and to compel the issuance of construction permits. But the defendants showed that the moratorium was no longer in effect, mooting any appeal. As to any pending permits, the plaintiff did not allege how the plaintiff was entitled to their issuance, nor include them in the record on appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
(Overview summary)
Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Patricia Thibeault, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112285

Civil

Discovery was due on motion to set aside default
Rule allowing a circuit court to set aside default judgment created an action independent of the underlying defaulted action and therefore subject to discovery. In ruling on the motion without ruling on discovery disputes, the circuit court abused its discretion.
(Overview summary)
William Yeokum vs. The National Football Museum, INC.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86500

Criminal

Marijuana expungement included extracts
Constitutional provisions allow expungement of convictions based on the possession of marijuana and related substances, including extracts like tetrahydrocannabinol, possession of which was the basis for the appellant’s conviction. The appellant’s conviction was therefore subject to expungement, and the circuit court erred in denying the appellant’s petition for expungement.
(Overview summary)
R.M.S. vs. Lafayette County Prosecuting Attorney, Et Al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86328

No prejudice shown
The appellant challenged the circuit court’s ruling, sustaining the state’s objections to voir dire inquiries of one panel, alleging a chilling effect on a second panel. But the record showed similar responses to similar inquiries from both panels, so the appellant showed no prejudice. When the appellant told the circuit court about juror conversations, and the circuit court granted the relief that the appellant sought, any error was invited, and the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Stephen Christopher Whitfield
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86054

Fourth degree assault convictions replaced first degree assault convictions
In response to the defendant’s argument and evidence that the murder weapon belonged to an informant, the State entered into evidence a YouTube video showing defendant displaying and describing the weapon of the make and model used in the offense. “Where ‘the defendant has injected an issue into the case, the State may be allowed to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence in order to explain or counteract a negative issue raised by the issue [the] defendant interjects.’” No error occurred and, even if it did, defendant showed no prejudice in the context of other evidence of guilt. An objection to character evidence did not preserve an objection to propensity evidence. The elements of first-degree assault included a purpose as to the specific victim. The evidence showed that defendant did not know that most of the victims were in the house that was defendant’s target. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions for first degree assault and remanded to the circuit court for convictions on class A misdemeanor fourth degree assault, for which the mental state was recklessness.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. D'ERECK WHITNEY, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37873

Employment

Hostile environment shown
The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was whether the plaintiff made a submissible case. A submissible case for employment discrimination based on gender by hostile work environment included evidence that the plaintiff experienced severe and pervasive harassment affecting his employment status because of the plaintiff’s gender. The plaintiff produced “ample” such evidence with instances of a supervisor’s mention of not sleeping together, interference with plaintiff’s assigned duties, and other disparate treatment. Remanded for a determination of the plaintiff’s attorney fee.
(Overview summary)
Bryant Holmes vs. Missouri Department of Corrections
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86357

Evidence

Ordinance not in evidence
An appellate court had to dismiss an appeal when judicial review was impossible because of an insufficient record. A sufficient record included all applicable ordinances and ordinances were not subject to judicial notice so entering each ordinance into the record or stipulating to their language was necessary. “Without the ordinances in the record, no standards existed for determining whether the board’s decision was based on competent and substantial evidence.” Regardless of which party bore the burden of proof, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice to re-file the application that the ordinance governed.
(Overview summary)
Weatherby Lake Improvement Company, INC vs. City of Weatherby Lake Board of Zoning Adjustment
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86685

Insurance

Delivery-related exclusion prevails
Insured was in the business of “cattle, chickens and dogs” and used a vehicle in that business. On the way from Arkansas to Missouri, to trade chickens from Arkansas for a flatbed trailer in Missouri, a multiple-vehicle wreck damaged the vehicle. Insured made a claim under an automobile policy, which the insurer denied, so insured sued for vexatious refusal to pay. On motions for summary judgment, insured prevailed. The automobile policy excluded coverage for any vehicle used in a delivery-related business, defined to include the transportation of property including animals, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for insured and remanded for entry of judgment for insurer.
SAMMY WOODS, Plaintiff-Respondent v. TRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38381

Personal injury

Voluntary dismissal started re-filing period
The plaintiff filed an action for negligence four years into the time limit for filing. The plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal was effective without order of the circuit court when filed. Savings statute permitted re-filing one year from that date, not one year from the circuit court’s memorialization of the dismissal. Therefore, the plaintiff’s re-filing was outside the five-year limitation and the one-year period for refiling. The circuit court did not err in dismissing the action so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary) 
Amy Winget, Appellant, vs. K&S Associates, Inc., Dickinson Hussman Architects, P.C., Inside/Out Architecture, Inc., and Horner & Shifrin, Inc., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112242

No dangerous condition of property in absence of monitors
Statute provided that the state had sovereign immunity from suit with limited exceptions including a dangerous condition of property. To state a claim, the plaintiff had to allege facts relevant under the elements of that exception, including a physical defect in construction or maintenance, which did not include a lack of barriers or other preventative measures. The plaintiff failed to state a claim so the circuit court did not err in dismissing the action.
(Overview summary) 
Patricia Nowell-Silman, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Public Safety Veterans' Commission d/b/a Missouri Veterans' Home, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112005

Real estate

Emails showed no contract
A party without the burden of proof could prevail on summary judgment by establishing beyond dispute facts that negate any element of the claim. In an action for specific performance, the plaintiffs had the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of any contract for the transfer of real property against a party absent a writing signed by that party. Such a writing must show a meeting of the minds as to all essential elements. The plaintiffs offered emails to show the parties’ agreement and the plaintiffs' conduct to show their performance of the agreement, which would eliminate the need for a writing. But the emails omitted the price and proposed a new provision. And the defendants showed that the emails reflected ongoing discussions as to essential terms and that the plaintiffs’ purported performance was merely anticipatory preparation for an anticipated deal. And the plaintiffs failed to show that all plaintiffs agreed to any deal. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
(Overview summary) 
Clifton Merritt and Tammy Merritt, Appellants, vs. Kenneth Wilson and Karen Wilson, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111983