Case summaries for Sept. 12-18, 2025

Administrative | Appellate | Civil  | Criminal | Employment | Health | Juvenile | Personal injury

Administrative

Attorney fees award affirmed in Planned Parenthood case
An executive branch agency’s authority to investigate did not necessarily include the power to compel compliance with the investigation. An executive branch agency’s decision was subject to review in circuit court, and that judgment was subject to review in the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled on the judgment by reviewing the decision — not the judgment — and that review did not include relitigation of the action. A point relied on challenging the judgment was therefore subject to dismissal, but appellate courts preferred to rules on the merits, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the decision. On appeal from a later decision that incorporated by reference an earlier ruling, both decisions were at issue. The decision awarded litigation expenses under statutes describing state litigation against certain parties. Parties had to have less than a certain amount of net worth, which did not include related entities. Executive branch agencies had no authority to apply equitable remedies like piercing the corporate veil, and appellant did not establish the elements of that claim. And the appellant department could not raise arguments under the United States Equal Access to Justice Act when it did not raise that act before the tribunal that made the award. The department’s position in a contested case had no substantial justification, meaning no serious basis in fact, or no serious basis in law. For a licensed health care facility, revocation of the facility’s license required proof that the facility failed to substantially comply with governing laws, and two violations out of 4,000 procedures, especially given the “volume and extent of the unreasonable allegations that formed the Department’s most serious and admittedly dispositive allegations,” did not constitute a serious basis for revocation in fact and law. The facility incurred the litigation expenses in that it reimbursed related payors for those expenses. “Courts routinely award attorney’s fees where legal counsel have provided their services pro bono.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Hearing Commission’s award and remanded the action for a determination of the award for defending in the Missouri Court of Appeals.
(Overview summary)
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services vs. Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87223

Appellate

Failure to follow rules yielded dismissal
Rules of appellate procedure preserve the courts’ neutrality, and failure to comply with those rules was cause for dismissal. Appellants had to file a complete record on appeal. A statement of facts had to recount the evidence, in the light most favorable to the judgment, with references to the record. Those references were necessary to show the interaction of fact and law. When challenging a judgment as against the weight of the evidence, appellant had to follow a specified analysis. Failure to comply with those rules prevented the Missouri Court of Appeals from ruling on the merits of appellants' appeal, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Clyde O. Carter, Sr. and Linda Darnell Bowie Carter vs. Clyde O. Carter, Jr.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87124 (consolidated with WD87125)

Notice of appeal was untimely
Decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission became final within a specified time after mailing. The commission’s certification of mailing established the date of mailing. Finality started the time to seek judicial review of the decision by filing of a notice of appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals, which appellant missed by almost three months. “While there are procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, they do not apply to special statutory proceedings such as unemployment cases [.]” For lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113189

Ruling on final judgment mooted interlocutory appeal
Appellate court dismiss appeals in which events have rendered an opinion unnecessary or ineffective. Pending an interlocutory appeal from rulings on motions, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued its opinion on the final judgment in the same action, mooting the interlocutory appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal.
(Overview summary)
Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. "Bryan" Nanna, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113078

Civil

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law applied
The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law applied to judgment of other states in the United States of America, not to foreign nations, and required a verified petition. Courts enforced those requirements strictly. Plaintiff’s motion for registration did not comply with those requirements, so the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment on the motion and entered a judgment of dismissal.
(Overview summary)
Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. Nanna, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals - Eastern District - ED113487

Criminal

Probation revocation prohibited
Probation was subject to revocation on reasonable satisfaction that a violation of conditions occurred, as determined after due process that included notice and an opportunity to be heard, and confrontation of state witnesses. At the hearing, the state offered only of a Notice of Citation that stated “arrested for DWLR/S,” and an undisclosed witness who knew of that Notice of Citation and nothing more. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of prohibition barring revocation on the record made at the hearing.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, ex rel. Michael Joe Butler, Relator, v. Honorable Joseph Rathert, Circuit Judge, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113612

Employment

Sex discrimination shown
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies was an affirmative defense that the asserting party had to plead by “clearly and precisely” alleging facts establishing that defense and, to preserve it for appellate review, raise the matter in a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The time limit for seeking relief under the Human Rights Act for sex discrimination was “no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery by the alleged injured party [,]” except where continuing violations that extended further into the past, which the plaintiff showed. Plaintiff also showed a hostile work environment with evidence that male employees received favorable budgeting and access to physical resources, which made work more difficult to accomplish, based on plaintiff’s gender. Objections to instructions were untimely, and an objection to inconsistent verdicts was not made, so both were waived. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied a motion to strike an exhibit that the moving party relied on in briefing. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review on remaining points and remanded the action to determine an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party.  
(Overview summary)
Beverly Brennan, Respondent, vs. Harris-Stowe State University, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112917

Health

No HIPAA protections from investigative subpoenas
When investigating alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act, the attorney general had authority to issue civil investigative demands, which were subject to rules governing discovery in civil actions, including in-camera review, protective orders, and the use of a special master. Circuit court actions to determine the enforceability of such demands were subject to review in the Missouri Court of Appeals by constitutional provision that rendered a contrary statutory provision obsolete. The demands could not procure privileged information but respondent waived any privilege not raised in circuit court. The United States Health Information Portability and Accountability Act generally barred the disclosure of certain health-related information with specific exceptions, including to a health oversight agency or administrative tribunal, but those words did not describe the attorney general. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the circuit court to redetermine and order which information shall be subject to production, including whether “de-identified” or “anonymized” information satisfy the demands, which was the attorney general’s burden.
(Overview summary)
The Washington University, Respondent, v. Catherine L. Hanaway in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113034

Juvenile

Strickland standard applied to certification counsel
In actions to certify juveniles for trial under general criminal statutes, each juvenile had the right to effective counsel, determined by whether any substandard performance by certification counsel the prejudiced the juvenile. Appellant juvenile charged that certification failed to present expert testimony on adolescent brain development to show that further services could rehabilitate the juvenile. But the factors for determining certification did not include brain development, such testimony was not as persuasive as the nature of the offense, on which the circuit court relied. Therefore, certification counsel did not perform below the professional standard and the juvenile suffered no prejudice, showing that certification counsel was not ineffective.
(Overview summary)
In the interest of: C.B., Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112950

Personal injury

Exception to sovereign immunity pleaded
A petition in circuit court had to plead the ultimate facts that described a theory of recovery including, when the defendant was the state, an exception to sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity protected the state from any action in circuit court except as waived. Waivers included public property in a dangerous condition. Dangerous conditions included physical defects in the design of a public road and inadequate signage that increased the danger. The petition meant that description by alleging at a road ended at a T intersection without warning. The circuit court erred in dismissing the petition so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action.
(Overview summary)
Clint Puckett, et al. vs. Nodaway County, MO., et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87656