Case summaries for Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2025
Each week, The Missouri Bar provides links to all hand downs published online during the past seven days by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Bar has created headings and summaries for each case. Summaries are not part of the opinions of the Court. They have been prepared for the convenience of the reader and should not be quoted or cited.
Administrative | Criminal | Employment | Real estate
Administrative
Argument was both reasonable and unreasonable
Police pension included benefits for disabilities exclusively caused by a service-connected accident. A service-connected accident was not the exclusive cause of the claimant’s disability, the pension’s governing agency concluded. But the evidence cited in support related to disability, not exclusivity, and disability was uncontested. The agency acted unreasonably in denying benefits, so the Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action to the agency to rule on exclusivity. But the agency’s position was reasonable, because the matter of exclusivity had been untested, so the Missouri Court of Appeals denied claimant’s motion for litigation expenses.
(Overview summary)
Alana Hauck, Respondent, vs. The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, et al., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113098
Criminal
No marijuana offense, no expungement
Expungement of criminal records was possible for marijuana offenses, meaning “only offenses that involve [p]urchasing, possessing, consuming, using, ingesting, inhaling, processing, transporting, delivering without consideration, or distributing without consideration three ounces or less of dried, unprocessed marijuana, or its equivalent[.]” That did not include class B felony distribution of a controlled substance by selling more than five grams of marijuana, which was the petitioner’s offense. That offense was not a marijuana offense, so expungement was not possible. The circuit court denied the petition and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
M.F.G.B. vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87548
Employment
Action under Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights was filed too late
The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights afforded specific process to law enforcement employees, provided remedies for deprivation of that process, and set a deadline for filing claims for such deprivation. That deadline began when the deprivation was ascertainable, not when the employee received a negative result from the deprivation. The circuit court dismissed the claimant’s action as time-barred and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Colin Rumpsa, Appellant, vs. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113002
Real estate
Pleadings and judgment adequate for easement
A petition’s allegations, not the name ascribed or the relief requested, determined the cause of action pleaded. In an action for an implied easement, defendants did not show that anything required a recitation of “reasonable necessity.” Reasonable necessity consisted of obstructive terrain for which a reconfiguration would be prohibitive. The judgment adequately designated the location of the easement both within the judgment’s language and by exhibits incorporated into the judgment. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as amended to clarify the nature of the easement.
THOMAS BENZEN, et al., Respondents vs. JEFFREY B. WHEELER, et al., Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38761