Case summaries for Oct. 24-30, 2025

Civil | Criminal | Employment | Wokers' compensation

Civil

No more discovery was due before granting summary judgment 
Circuit courts had discretion to defer ruling on a motion for summary judgment until the completion of discovery if “that additional discovery will likely establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the [earlier discovery response’s] authenticity.” The appellant plaintiffs had served discovery requests for “cancelled checks or other payment records” for amounts at issue. But the plaintiffs did not show that the records were relevant to the amounts. And the respondent defendants had already produced payment records for those amounts, while the plaintiffs offered only speculation as to the payment records’ authenticity. No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court denied more time for that discovery. One appellant plaintiff failed to challenge another basis for granting summary judgment against that plaintiff so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that summary judgment. Arguments made in circuit court but not raised in a point relied on were abandoned. The Court of Appeals was the proper venue in which to file a motion for attorney fees incurred on appeal as provided by contract, yet the circuit court remained the better place to determine the amount of such an award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded the action for a determination of attorney fees due on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Acoma Development, LLC, et al. vs. Commerce Tower Place, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87977

Special process service was okay 
Whether a circuit court erred on whether to vacate a judgment, as void for defective process or service, was subject to appellate review de novo with deference to the circuit court’s finding of facts. Once the circuit court appointed a special process server, that special process server’s name did not have to appear on the summons. Special process servers’ returns carried no presumption of sufficient service and required supporting evidence, which the attestations in the supporting affidavit of the plaintiff’s special process server provided. The defendant did not show that the return was not filed promptly nor any consequences for a return not filed promptly. Evidence of proper service was subject to impeachment only by clear and convincing evidence, and the circuit court’s assessment of the conflicting testimony controlled. 
(Overview summary) 
Mary A. Cook, and the William Edward Cook and Mary Ann Cook Trust, Respondents, v. Glenn Sykes, d/b/a Sykes Hauling and Tree Service, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113495 

Criminal

Corpus delecti defined 
The corpus delecti doctrine was a criminal rule of evidence barring the defendant's extrajudicial statements until some slight corroborating evidence showed that someone — not necessarily the defendant — committed a crime. Plentiful evidence established the corpus delecti, so the defendant’s confession was admissible to show the defendant’s guilt. On a charge of kidnapping in the first degree, the elements included confinement for a substantial period, which the State showed with evidence that the intended period facilitated the defendant’s other offenses and escape. Whether the confinement was incidental to any other offense was irrelevant. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Ashontai Samuel Wallace
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87231

Reliance on impersonation shown 
The elements of impersonating a public official included the victim’s reliance on the defendant’s representations. The state supported that element with the victim’s testimony that she would have divulged the procured information depending on the requester’s identity. “Actions taken in response to representation that an individual is a law enforcement officer, whether during or after the representation, are indicative of a reliance on that representation.” 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Mary J. Barton, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113024

Employment

No interest on back pay from the AHC 
The Administrative Hearing Commission had authority to decide whether a state employer had wrongfully terminated an employee, and to award back pay, but not to award interest on that back pay. That was so even when a circuit court judgment awarded “statutorily authorized” interest because no statute allowing interest applied to the commission’s decision. 
(Overview summary) 
Gregory Steins vs. Missouri Department of Agriculture 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87634

Workers’ compensation

Retaliation award and sanctions affirmed 
The defendants’ motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were subject to the same standard in circuit court and in an appellate court: whether probative evidence supported each element of the plaintiff’s claim. Employers could not, subject to damages, fire an employee for seeking workers’ compensation. On that matter, the plaintiff’s evidence supported a factual dispute as to whether seeking workers’ compensation, or some other reason, was a motivating factor in the plaintiff’s termination. The “range between the damage extremes of inadequacy and excessiveness” was generally so large that jury discretion in damage awards was “virtually unfettered[.]” The plaintiff’s mitigation of damages was an affirmative defense. The record supported the jury’s award so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying remittitur. Circuit courts had inherent authority to sanction a party’s misconduct with a penalty even in excess of a party’s expenses in litigating against such misconduct. The employer’s fraudulent allegations of juror misconduct, not investigated by the employer’s counsel, supported a sanction equal to the jury’s award of damages to the plaintiff. 
(Overview summary) 
Kathleen Louise Hicks vs. Commercial Metals Company, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87598 consolidated with WD87627