Case summaries for Aug. 30-Sept. 5, 2024

Administrative | Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Local government | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Probate

Administrative

Status of records not established for sunshine law action
A party could prevail on a motion for summary judgment by establishing beyond genuine dispute the facts that entitled it to a favorable decision. Sunshine Law statutes provided that any public governmental body’s records, including records in electronic format, were generally open to the public with exceptions for closed records. Any public governmental body’s duty to produce records depended on the scope of the request, so the public governmental body did not have to produce information that was not in those records even if related to those records, and did not have to generate a new record. A requester asked for “the annual ‘raw’ data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms with all columns including the [identifying numbers of officers who made stops] to compile the stats for the annual Vehicle Stop Reports.” The requester did not receive the identifying numbers. In an action to enforce the Sunshine Law, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. The summary judgment record did not establish material facts from which to conclude whether the identifying numbers were part of the requested records nor whether those numbers constituted closed records. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated summary judgment for the respondent public governmental bodies and remanded for resolution of those matters.
(Overview summary)
Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, MO., City of University City, MO., City of Webster Groves, MO., Respondents, and Regional Justice Information Services Commission (REJIS), Defendant.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100427

Appellate

Point relied on failed to identify a ruling
Rules required appellant’s brief to include a statement of facts unbiased in perspective. “[F]ailure to acknowledge adverse evidence is simply not good appellate advocacy. Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, [the appealing party] would surely lose.” Points relied on had to identify a challenged ruling and not simply the judgment as a whole. Even in a bench trial, preservation of error required presentation to circuit court. Failure to comply with those rules “[d]eprived [the Missouri Court of Appeals] of the necessary means to conduct an impartial review[,]” so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
DORMAN E. STURGELL, Trustee of the Sturgell Family Trust dated November 10, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GARY YOUNGBLOOD, in his capacity as Presiding Commissioner of Barry County, WAYNE HENDRIX, in his capacity as Associate Commissioner of Barry County, Gary Schad, in his capacity as Associate Commissioner of Barry County, Defendants-Respondents, and MOUNTAIN SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT, a special road district of Barry County, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38170

Civil

Ten year statute of limitations applied to breach of a contract for payment of money
Any action for breach of contract was subject to a five-year statute of limitations except when “the plaintiff seeks a judgment from the defendant for payment of money the defendant agreed to pay in a written contract.” That statute applied without regard to the contract’s subject matter or whether extrinsic evidence was necessary to determine the amount due. That time started running on the plaintiff’s employment contract at the end of employment. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to claims dismissed for untimely filing. As to other claims dismissed, the plaintiff waived any error in any ruling as to which the plaintiff challenged less than all supporting bases, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on all other claims.
(Overview summary)
John Marcus Sommers vs. Kruse Mennillo, LLP, Et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86387

Criminal

Inconsistent verdicts resolved
In any criminal action, the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment required counsel in all critical phases. But the jury acquitted defendant of a felony charge, so appellant could not show prejudice from lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing, whether the preliminary hearing was a critical stage or not. As to lesser-included offense instructions, no plain error occurred when the circuit court submitted the state’s instruction and rejected the defendant’s instruction, because the two instructions were not mutually exclusive — submitting the defendant’s would not have barred the state’s. A jury verdict was not binding until the circuit court accepted the verdict and discharged the jury, the former of which might have happened but the latter of which did not, so the circuit court was free to reject an inconsistent verdict of acquittal and proceed through resolution of the inconsistencies and sentencing.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Thompson, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111738

Evidence

No plain error review of foundation
No objection to foundation raised for the first time on appeal was subject to appellate review even for plain error. Plain error’s elements included manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, and none was evident in testimony of a field test finding of positive for methamphetamine, when that testimony also mentioned that field tests are not conclusive. And defendant had 37 grams of conclusively positively tested methamphetamine. Therefore, even if plain error review occurred, none would have been found. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. TRAVIS STERLING, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38212

Family

Grandparent intervention was an unconditional right
Grandparent filed motion to modify the parenting plan and a timely motion to intervene on the issue of visitation. Rule required a circuit court to grant any timely motion to intervene on the issue of visitation filed by a grandparent. Nevertheless, the circuit court denied the motion to intervene based on the merits of the motion to modify without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court.
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRITTANY M. SMITH, Respondent v. PATRICK A. SMITH, Respondent and GOLDIA M. KRANAWETTER, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38151

Local government

Ordinance authorized director of airports to terminate lease
Appellate courts did not review a appellant’s brief that did not conform to appellate rules, including rules on the statement of facts and points relied on, except when the deficiencies did not impede review. The plain language of an ordinance directing city officials to enter into contracts authorized each officer to act alone and not as a body. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for defendant city.
(Overview summary)
Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The City of St. Louis, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112575

State legal expense fund did not cover St. Louis Board of Police commissioners
Statutory amendment to the State Legal Expense Fund removed boards of police commissioners and police officers from the fund’s coverage and an initiative removed the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners from state control. In an action against the state for declaratory judgment, the City of St. Louis sought reimbursement for the legal expenses incurred in defense of a police officer, which the circuit court granted. That ruling was erroneous because there was no liability until the filing of a claim and the filing of the claim occurred after the amendments. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the city and remanded for entry of a judgment for the State.
(Overview summary)
City of St. Louis, Respondent, and Joseph Brauer and Chris Pappas, Plaintiffs, vs. State of Missouri, and Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112349

Personal injury

Sovereign immunity waived for dangerous condition of state property
Statute’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity rendered the State liable for damages caused by a dangerous condition of state property, including property to which a statute vested title in the governor, and including property owned by another entity but within the state’s possession and control. The plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition of a correctional facility owned and operated by the state caused his injury. Those allegations stated a claim for relief. A one-year statute of limitations applied to any action “brought by an offender … against the department of corrections or any entity or division thereof.” That statute did not apply to an action against the state because the state was neither the Missouri Department of Corrections nor any of its divisions or other entities. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions, tardy though the state’s discovery responses were. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court as to sanctions and reversed as to dismissal.
(Overview summary)
Trent Berhow vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86333

Roundup judgment affirmed
Appellate review of an exclusion of evidence “focused ‘not on whether the evidence was admissible but on whether the [circuit] court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.’” The statutory foundation for an expert witness’s opinion included showing that the opinion was within the witness’s expertise. A witness’ expertise did not include the causes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an opinion on that subject. After gaining an exclusion of plaintiff’s expert, the defendant’s opening statement referred to the absence of expert testimony on causation, but that did not require a mistrial, and a curative instruction was sufficient. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a venire person whose law firm counseled the defendant 30 years before on an unrelated matter. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for defendant.
(Overview summary)
Stacey Moore, Appellant, v. Monsanto Company, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112004

Church immunity case transferred
A defending party could prevail on a motion for summary judgment by establishing facts beyond genuine dispute that negate any single element of the claimant party’s theory. Such a showing supported dismissal for failure to state a claim and did not require the pleading of an affirmative defense. Constitutional provisions protected churches from excessive judicial entanglement in religious policies and doctrines, including how a reasonable church would conduct a youth ministry, because that inquiry described the relationship between the church and its congregants. “[C]hurch members give their implied consent to be subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” Based on the general interest and importance of the issue, the Missouri Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
JANE DOE, a minor by next friend, T.N., Appellant vs. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PIERCE CITY, MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38331

Post-conviction

No prejudice in delayed trial
No hearing was necessary to deny relief without a hearing where the record already refuted a movant’s claims. Constitutional provisions providing a speedy trial protected liberty interests. A claim under those provisions depended on several factors, including when the defendant asserted the right, the cause of the delay, and resulting prejudice. Prejudice included facts that supported dismissal of the charges. The movant did not show any likelihood of success on those factors and so did not show that counsel were ineffective for choosing not to raise the issue in circuit court or in the Missouri Court of Appeals. Waiver of jury trial made in open court and entered of record was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent as shown by the prescribed written form and colloquy with the circuit judge; and was also a sound trial strategy so trial counsel was not ineffective. Because the movant consistently maintained self-defense, the state offered no plea bargain, and the movant did not show that the circuit court would have accepted a plea deal, movant did not show that trial counsel was ineffective in securing no plea deal. The circuit court did not err in denying relief without a hearing.
(Overview summary)
Anthony L. Sinks, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals=Eastern District - ED112027

Incomplete record on appeal, deficient brief, appeal dismissed
Rules required appellant to assemble and file the record on appeal. No motion to amend appeared in the legal file, so appellant did not preserve error in any absence of required findings of fact and conclusions of law. The incomplete record on appeal also compromised appellant’s statement of facts, which had to refer to the record on appeal. And the statement of facts was conclusory and argumentative. The points relied on were multifarious and offered no factual bases for reversal. Unable to review any of appellant’s arguments without speculation, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
WILLIE D. CLARK, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37440

Probate

Standing to contest will shown
Courts did not exercise their authority unless the party starting the action had standing to do so as shown by the petition and undisputed facts. The use of undisputed facts suggested summary judgment as a method for disposition. In defending against the petition by motion for summary judgment, the personal representative failed to support a critical allegation with admissible evidence and so could not prevail. Besides, dismissal, not a ruling on the merits like summary judgment, was the remedy for an action brought without standing. Standing to bring a will contest was subject to a statute that granted standing to any person who would “either gain or lose under the contested will[.]” Alternatives to the contested will included a revoked trust. The trust included all the decedent’s property as of the creation of the trust. After the creation of the trust, more assets came into the decedent’s estate. But those assets were not in the trust because the trust did not include property acquired after the creation of the trust, an earlier will pouring over assets into the trust was never timely offered for probate, and no mechanism existed to transfer any property into the trust if acquired after the creation of the trust. Therefore, if the plaintiffs were successful in their will contest, intestate succession would pass the assets to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff therefore stood to lose from the contested will and thus had standing to contest the will. Judgment for defendant personal representative vacated and remanded.
MICHAEL C. LAWS, JR., and MALINDA A. SALINGER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. J. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, Personal Representative, and SUBSTITUTED PARTIES MOREAU, Defendants-Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37525