Case summaries for Sept. 25-Oct. 1, 2026

Appellate | Attorneys | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Juvenile | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Workers' compensation

Appellate

Appellant appealed one judgment and briefed another
Appellate courts preferred to resolve arguments on their merits but could not fashion arguments for the parties. To preserve judicial neutrality, appellate courts enforced rules on briefing that required appellants to set forth their challenges to give notice of the appellant’s theories to the Missouri Court of Appeals or the other parties. The appellant cited facts and made arguments related to a judgment that the appellant did not appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Audwin Porter vs. Dipasquale Moore LLC, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88424

How to brief an appeal from summary judgment explained
Parties could prevail on motions for summary judgment by establishing facts beyond genuine dispute on which the law entitled the movant to a favorable ruling. Appellate courts reviewed summary judgments the same way that circuit courts ruled on motions for summary judgment: on the summary judgment record. The appellant failed to support its challenges with citations to the summary judgment record showing the facts established and the facts genuinely disputed. “It is unclear [whether the appellants] are arguing that there are material facts in dispute that preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of [the respondents] but not in favor of [the appellants] or whether they are arguing that summary judgment in favor of [the respondents] was improper as a matter of law.” The appellants established neither, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Midwest Contracting Services, LLC, et al. vs. Arch Insurance Company, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88266

Attorneys

Commingling, concealment, and neglect resulted in disbarment
Respondent attorney commingled client property with his own property; kept trust account records inadequate for reconciliation; neglected a client’s action, resulting in dismissal, which damaged the client. The respondent attorney concealed the dismissal for three-and-a-half years and failed to deliver the client’s file. Those violations supported disbarment, which negated probation. And aggravating factors, like the respondent’s long experience in the law and failure to cooperate with the chief disciplinary counsel, met with no circumstances sufficient to mitigate discipline. Repeated violations supported an inference of knowing violations. “[T]he discipline imposed in prior, seemingly similar cases is not dispositive [because, w]hile the law governing a lawyer’s ethical obligations is consistent, the facts of different cases rarely are.” The Supreme Court of Missouri disbarred the respondent attorney.
(Overview summary)
In re: William Patrick Hogan, Respondent
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101636

Civil

Motion to set aside default was too late
Circuit courts could set aside default judgments on motions filed within a reasonable time. But that reasonable time could not exceed one year from the date on which the circuit court filed the judgment, even though the judgment was not final on that date. Due process did not require notice of the default judgment to the defaulting party. A post-judgment amendment to the return of service did not alter that result because the manner and place of service had always been correct and the amendment changed only the capacity of the person receiving service. Equitable tolling required the movant to show that it diligently pursued its rights, which the movant did not show. The circuit court denied the motion and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Laurie P. Staus vs. Federal Protection, Inc.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88160

Criminal

No alibi instruction was necessary
The defendants could offer evidence of good character as substantive proof of innocence, not generally, but as relevant to “the traits of character involved in the crime[.]” That did not describe evidence that the defendant behaved appropriately around children on charges of statutory sodomy. Circuit courts could not give instructions on an alibi defense without “evidence that the defendant was somewhere other than the place of commission, during the entire time of commission.” For child sexual offenses, time was not an element. And the defendant’s evidence showed that he was at the place of commission for only part of the time of the  commission, so the circuit court did not err in refusing an instruction on an alibi defense. A charge of error expanded on appeal was subject to plain error review only, which the Missouri Court of Appeals declined. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kyle J. Huber, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114063

Conviction reversed on self-incrimination
Waiver of counsel required a signed form, and a Faretta hearing with a record adequate to determine whether the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. None of that occurred. The circuit court’s colloquy did not clarify that the defendant understood the charges and possible sentences. Those events constituted plain error, so the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded the action for a new trial.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL PAUL WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39228

No plain error in bench determination of persistent offender status
Objections to sentencing procedure as standing on insufficient jury findings, or as unauthorized by statute, did not preserve an objection that the procedure deviated from that to which the parties agreed. That left only plain error review, of which the elements included an obvious error affecting a substantial right and resulting in manifest injustice. And even on that showing, review was discretionary. Jury questions included facts in support of an enhanced sentence. Constitutional rights were structural and raised a presumption of prejudice. But the right to jury sentencing was statutory, constituted a recommendation only, and was not grounds for reversal. Besides, the defendant received a sentence without enhancement.  The Missouri Court of Appeals declined sua sponte plain error review.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Demont M. Vandunk
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88191

Evidence

Offers of proof discussed
"[M]ultiple claims of error in a single point relied on renders the point multifarious” and subject to dismissal. The appellant also failed to identify and discuss excluded evidence and its relation to the circuit court’s findings. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed that point. Offers of proof were necessary to preserve error in excluded evidence. Failure to make an offer of proof also supported an exercise of discretion against plain error review. Offers of proof showing that the disputed evidence was partly admissible but partly inadmissible were subject to exclusion entirely. The defendant’s offer of proof was largely irrelevant hearsay of little probity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CARL JOE JETT, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39332

Evidence of uncharged conduct was admissible
Evidence of uncharged crimes was admissible to show a complete picture of the circumstances, which could include why the victims did not report events sooner, so evidence of the defendant’s generally violent and abusive nature was admissible. Evidence of false sexual contact allegations were admissible to impeach a witness, but the defendant did not show that anyone’s allegations were false. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. William G. Noble
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87982

No prejudice from cumulative evidence
Evidence that was cumulative of other evidence entered without objection could not be prejudicial. The elements of property damage in the first degree included damage worth over a specified amount. Witnesses twice testified to the cost of repairing the damaged property without objection before the defendant made a hearsay objection the third time around. “Here, we need not decide whether Victim 2’s testimony regarding the dollar estimate of damage to his vehicle is hearsay or not because admission of his testimony — even if inadmissible — could not result in reversible error.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Denver Leon Newland
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87869

Family

Indian Child Welfare Act applied
Before terminating parental rights, the Indian Child Welfare Act required services to keep the family together. The Juvenile Office met that burden with evidence of “sustained outreach to Mother and Father, an individualized incarcerated-parent plan, institutional inquiries, assistance establishing paternity, repeated encouragement and information, involvement of the Tribe, a diligent family search for both parents, and efforts to preserve Child’s familial relationships.” The act also required evidence of causation between continued custody and likely harm to the child. The Juvenile Office met that burden with expert evidence that linked likely harm to the parent’s past and continuing issues, the absence of a relationship with child, and the child’s current placement. The judgment included all required findings of fact. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
In the Interest of W.M.G., Greene County Juvenile Office, Respondent v. R.D.G., II, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39476

Evaluation of business goodwill discussed
When arguing that a ruling was against the weight of the evidence, the appellants could not cite testimony found not credible for evidence contrary to a challenged proposition. And findings of fact were subject to review for abuse of discretion. In actions for dissolution of marriage, business assets were subject to property division, including goodwill, if characterized as marital property. Goodwill meant the likelihood that old customers would continue with the business and was present in “highly skilled personal services.” That included event planning. “[T]he value of goodwill that can be attributed specifically to the business is marital property, but the value of goodwill that is attributed to the reputation of the spouse is not.” The source of the business’s goodwill was the spouse owner’s skills and business connections.  The circuit court articulated no grounds for an award of attorney fees and none appeared in the record, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the attorney fee award. Otherwise, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Emily R. McNulty, Respondent, v. Daniel J. McNulty, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113778

Termination of parental rights affirmed on failure to rectify
Circuit courts could terminate parental rights on two elements: first, that clear, cogent and convincing evidence showed one statutory basis for termination; second, that a preponderance of the evidence showed termination to be in the child’s best interests. Each element had statutory factors for the circuit court’s consideration. Bases included failure to rectify the conditions that first supported the circuit court’s exercise of authority — abuse or neglect — which the record showed to continue unrectified. On appeal, the standard for reversal was no support in substantial evidence. The record supported the circuit court’s finding that the appellant failed to comply with a social service plan. And failure to challenge all factors left the remaining unchallenged factors to in support of the elements. The circuit court terminated the appellant’s parental rights, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of: W.I.M.P., Juvenile; Juvenile Officer vs. R.P. (Mother)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88378

Termination of parental rights left other relationships intact
In every action, every claimant party had to have standing, meaning an interest sufficient to bring the action. In actions for wrongful death, statutes granted standing by classifying potential plaintiffs. One classification included siblings. The plaintiff’s decedent and the plaintiff were siblings and the plaintiff brought the wrongful death action. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing a judgment that terminated the parental rights of the plaintiff and the decedent. Judgments terminating parental rights severed parent/child relationships absolutely and had no effect on any other relationship. Adoption statutes were inapplicable because no adoption occurred. The circuit court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action for lack of standing. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the action.  
NIKITA PASCHALL, Appellant v. SENATH SOUTH HEALTH CARE CENTER, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39215

Juvenile

Status offenses explained
Circuit courts could exercise authority over a juvenile found guilty in a civil action of a status offense, meaning an offense injurious to the welfare of the juvenile or others. That included driving a stolen car at over 100 miles per hour while fleeing police and in possession of a loaded pistol. The circuit court exercised authority over the juvenile and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.  
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of: M.L.K., Juvenile Officer vs. M.L.K.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88343

Personal injury

No settlement to enforce
On motions to enforce settlements, the movants had the burden to show by “clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence” that the parties had reached a settlement. Settlements were contracts and contracts existed only where there was consideration, an offer, and an acceptance. Acceptance of an offer had to be an unequivocal mirror image of the offer as to essential provisions. Provisions essential to the plaintiff’s settlement of an action against an insured for personal injuries included a release of further liability. The parties’ releases differed as to indemnification and hold harmless language. The circuit court denied the motion and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
(Overview summary)
Finiece Robinson, Respondent, v. Yvonna Walker, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114056

Post-conviction

Failure to appoint post-conviction counsel required reversal
Circuit courts had to appoint counsel for a movant who filed an initial motion and an in forma pauperis affidavit. No other forms were necessary so the omission of such other forms was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the circuit court dismissed the motion without appointing post-conviction counsel. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action for appointment of counsel and further proceedings.
(Overview summary)
Jeffrey D. Gray vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88701

Workers' compensation

Employee did not refuse treatment
Any employer could control treatment for employee claimants but was liable for the reasonable and medically necessary medical treatment that a claimant procured if the employer failed to provide treatment. Whether and when the claimant asked employer for treatment was a finding of fact that received deference on judicial review except when the record overwhelmingly showed otherwise. An estimate from the employee’s physician did not support an inference that the employee was going to reject the employer’s physician’s treatment. Three weeks was enough time for the respondent employer to provide treatment. “Employer could have reasserted control over Claimant’s treatment by simply sending him to a doctor of its choosing.” The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission did not err in denying an award of litigation expenses because the employer had evidence to contest the claim.  The Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in favor of reviewing a multifarious point, reversed the commission as to past medical expenses, and remanded the action to the commission for an award of past medical expenses starting with the claimant’s demand.
(Overview summary)
Ronald Wills, Appellant, v. Fixture Contracting Co., Inc., et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114391