Case summaries for Oct. 17-23, 2025

Appellate | Criminal | Employment | Evidence | Family | Juvenile | Post-conviction |Tax | Workers' compensation

Appellate

AI overview was not authority 
Rules of appellate practice preserved the quality of appellate opinions and protected the courts’ neutrality. Appellant’s jurisdictional statement did not identify the judgment appealed or the Court of Appeals’ power to review it, the statement of facts recited procure only and had no references to the record by page, argument failed to show preservation of error and standard of review, and points relied on did not identify a challenged ruling and authorities for the challenge. AI Overviews did not constitute legal authority. Ruling on the appeal would have required the Court of Appeals to make arguments on appellant’s behalf so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
Clay Chastain vs. City of Kansas City, Missouri, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87587

Analysis for no substantial evidence explained 
The Court of Appeals struck an exhibit from appellant defendant that no party offered in circuit court. An appeal based on lack of substantial evidence to support a finding or conclusion had to include and address all evidence facing the challenged ruling, which appellant did not do; so further analysis would have required the Court of Appeals to advocate for appellant, which no appellate court would do. Evidence showing that defendant was personally liable on a contract with plaintiff included the non-existence of a limited liability company when defendant signed the contracts and defendant’s ratification of a later contract. Respondent plaintiff’s brief was deficient but did not impede review, so the Court of Appeals did not strike it. Testimony from the plaintiff’s attorney supported an award of attorney fees as the contracts provided. 
(Overview Summary) 
Mississippi Valley Equipment Company, Respondent, vs. David Killian, d/b/a Elite Seawall & Excavating, LLC, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113156

Criminal

No appeal from condition of probation 
The circuit court announced sentence in defendant’s presence, imposed part, and suspended the remainder with conditions for probation. Probation reduced sentences so probation was not part of any sentence. Because only the sentence and finding of guilty were subject to appeal, condicitons of probation were not subject to appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JULIA M. POE, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38774

Employment

Whistleblower action dismissed 
Statutes barred government officials from retaliating against employees whom the official supervised for reporting specified events. In the House of Representatives, the Speaker did not supervise the Chief Clerk, in that the Speaker could direct the Chief Clerk’s activities, but not discipline the Chief Clerk, the Speaker’s ambitions to do so notwithstanding. The Chief Clerk’s petition did not state a cause of action so the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition. 
(Overview Summary) 
Dana Miller vs. The Missouri House of Representatives, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87809

Evidence

Silent witness foundation discussed 
A general objection to foundation preserved nothing for review. The objection had to cite the element of the foundation missing. And the same objection had to appear in a motion for new trial. The State had to present a security video as silent witness evidence, accurately as recorded and safe from alteration, which it did. That objection did not preserve an objection to the chain of custody. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Charles F. Miller 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87222

Family

Change in circumstances supported change in custody 
Circuit courts could modify their awards of custody if a substantial change in the child’s or custodian’s circumstances made a modification of custody in the child’s best interests with no presumption favoring a parent. Though modification judgments did not have to include written findings of fact, the judgment addressed the allegations in the motion. Denial of visitation supported modification of custody. On appeal, “Appellants’ failure to address the record is not a winning strategy.” 
(Overview Summary) 
C.M.L., et al., Appellants, v. S.R.B.-F., Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113155

Juvenile

Victim statement okay 
Juvenile proceedings were not criminal proceedings so no presumption of innocence attached to juvenile proceedings. The purpose of certification hearings was not to determine the truth of allegations against juvenile but to determine whether the juvenile should be treated in the juvenile system or tried in the criminal system. Victims had the right to make a statement as to the impact of a juvenile’s conduct on the victim. Even if the victim’s statements were inadmissible, appellant juvenile could not show prejudice, because appellant could not show that the statements had any impact on the certification judgment that did not refer to the statements. Moreover, the appellant did not analyze the judgment according to the applicable statutory factors for certification. 
(Overview Summary) 
In the Interest of: Q.L.B. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113007

Post-conviction

No appointment, no abandonment; prohibition issued 
Writs of prohibition were the remedy to halt circuit courts from acting in excess of their authority. Circuit courts had authority to hear an amended motion if appointed motion counsel abandoned the movant. But the abandonment doctrine existed to cure the late filing of an amended motion where motion counsel acted as if never appointed, so the abandonment doctrine did not apply to counsel—even a public defender—whom the circuit court did not appoint. A public defender voluntarily entered an appearance but the circuit court never appointed motion counsel for movant. Nevertheless, on the late filing of an amended motion, the circuit court ruled that motion counsel had abandoned the movant and determined to proceed with the action for post-conviction relief. The State sought extraordinary relief and the Court of Appeals granted a preliminary writ of prohibition. A remand to appoint motion counsel was not a remedy because motion counsel had already entered an appearance. Because the circuit court lacked authority to conclude that the abandonment doctrine applied, the Court of Appeals made permanent the writ of prohibition barring the circuit court from anything other than determining the initial motion. 
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE HANAWAY, Relator v. THE HONORABLE CHARLES D. CURLESS, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39039

Impeachment strategy was reasonable 
In claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, the elements included counsel’s substandard performance, which a reasonable strategy negated. Reasonable trial strategy included impeaching the victim’s honesty up to, but not including, the ultimate truth of victim’s allegations. 
(Overview Summary) 
Timothy Perkins, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113128

No motion in limine, no prejudice 
In claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, the elements included prejudice from counsel’s substandard performance. Trial counsel’s investigation of witnesses had to be reasonable but whether movant identified a witness to trial counsel was a matter of credibility, which the circuit court found against claimant. Orders in limine were interlocutory so movant did not show that failure to file a motion in limine prejudiced movant. Cumulative evidence was never prejudicial. 
(Overview Summary) 
Ralph Alexander, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113096

Tax

Tax v. Fee explained
Constitutional provisions allowed an award of attorney fees when a political subdivision collected a tax unlawfully imposed. A water district tried to collect amounts from plaintiffs, and the amounts were unlawfully imposed, but the amounts were not taxes. Taxes did not include amounts “prescribed by law to be paid by certain individuals to public officers for services rendered in connection with a specific purpose [.]” The amounts charged were flat amounts charged to anyone for access to the district’s sewer service and so constituted a fee and not a tax. That the district enforced collection by the filing of a property lien did not change that analysis.
ADAM BINGHAM and IDA BINGHAM, Appellants v. PHELPS COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT #4, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38542
 

Workers’ compensation

Defective notice didn’t start filing time 
Appellate courts reviewed decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission for sufficiency of the evidence. The Commission found that claimant’s application for review of an award before an administrative law judge was untimely. The time for filing an application for review started with notice of the award. The award consisted of a dismissal and notice was by certified or registered mail. The mailing record showed the dismissal mailed before it was signed, so the record did not show service by mail, and actual notice occurred eight months later. “Without evidence that the Division served Claimant with the Order of Dismissal in compliance with the statutory notice requirements, the 20-day period to file an application for review did not begin to run, and thus Claimant’s application for review was not untimely.” 
(Overview Summary) 
John W. Tippit, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113466