Case summaries for Nov. 20-Dec. 4, 2025

Administrative | ADR | Appellate | Civil | Consumer | Criminal | DWI | Elections | Employment security | Evidence | Family | Local government | Orders of protection | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Real estate | Tax | Workers' compensation

Administrative

Agency properly dismissed moot claims 
Like judicial tribunals, administrative tribunals had to consider whether claims were justiciable, including whether a claim was moot. Moot claims included claims were no controversy remained, so a ruling would constitute an advisory opinion on hypothetical facts, which agencies could not issue. On a motion to dismiss for mootness, the commission could consider facts outside the record. The complainants sought relief from the Public Service Commission as to a public utility’s attempts to exercise easement rights on the complainants’ land so, when those attempts ceased, no controversy remained. Allegations of other past conduct exceeding the utility’s certificate of convenience and necessity did not change that result. The commission dismissed the complaints and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s decision. 
(Overview summary) 
Missouri Office of the Public Counsel vs. Evergy Missouri West, INC. d/b/a Evergy Missouri West and Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87860

ADR

Standards for motions to compel arbitration discussed 
Arbitration was a matter of agreement and whether a valid agreement existed was a matter of fact on which the circuit court’s findings found deference in appellate courts even when made solely on documentary evidence. Both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act applied Missouri contract law, which required mutual assent, and the circuit court was unpersuaded by the movant’s evidence related to electronic signatures. “It was for the trial court to sort out these factual discrepancies, and ‘[circuit] courts are free to believe any, all, or none of the evidence presented[.]’" On that dispute, the parties’ presentation and circuit court’s consideration of exhibits and briefing made an evidentiary hearing unnecessary. 
(Overview summary) 
Connie Haworth vs. Guest Services, Inc., et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87623

Mediated settlement agreement was enforceable 
Plaintiff appellants brought a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act action in circuit court, which the defendants removed to federal district court, where the parties entered into a mediated settlement. Pending disposition, federal case law held that the plaintiffs’ petition was inadequate for failure to allege concrete harm. That failure, on transfer back to circuit court, was the basis for the circuit court’s dismissal of the action and refusal to enforce the settlement for lack of standing. Standing was a requirement for the federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, while the subject matter jurisdiction of Missouri’s circuit courts was plenary under the Missouri Constitution, so standing was merely a prudential consideration for a circuit court’s authority to grant relief. So, without the plaintiff’s standing to bring the action under the act, the circuit court lacked authority to grant relief, and the circuit court correctly dismissed the action. But the action to enforce the settlement agreement was collateral to the action under the act. The compromise of claims honestly contested constituted sufficient consideration. A fixed amount for such settlement constituted such an agreement’s essential provisions. Neither an agreement to further formalize, nor federal court silence on, the provisions changed that result. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the enforcement action and remanded that action for a settlement approval hearing. 
(Overview summary) 
Ria Schumacher, Individually and on Behalf of Others vs. SC Data Center, INC., d/b/a Colony Brands 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87722

Appellate

Citations not found 
Rulings subject to appeal included specified interlocutory orders, final judgments, and special orders after final judgment. The last included orders enforcing the provisions of dissolution decrees. Citations to authority that did not exist, and references to the record for findings that did not occur, preserved nothing for review. Moreover, the appellant failed to show how any law required reversal on any ruling, and so failed to “provide sufficient analytical support for the claim of reversible error.” The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Betsy L. Reeves vs. Elisabeth M. Sobczak 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87729

Proposed judgment invited error 
The appellants waived error as to the appearance of a witness whose appearance the appellants did not seek to enforce. No reversible error occurred in excluding testimony that was cumulative of other testimony. A motion challenging the verdict did not preserve a challenge to amount of the award. No award of costs was required when both sides prevailed on some claims and failed on others. The appellants and cross-appellants waived error as to matters not included in a proposed judgment: contempt for violation of a preliminary injunction and the format of the award. “Thus, any error was invited and not subject to review on appeal.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Tycon Company, LLC and Cierra R. Williams vs. Forest E. Tyson, Jr., et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86810 consolidated with WD86829

Appeal of summary judgment required facts of summary judgment 
The components of the appellant’s brief included a statement of the facts relevant to the appellant’s theory of reversal. When the judgment appealed was a summary judgment, the relevant facts were the numbered paragraphs of undisputed material facts, “the movant’s [statement of undisputed material facts ('SUMF')] and the non-movant’s response, the non-movant’s additional SUMF and the movant’s reply, and the movant’s supplemental SUMF and the non-movant’s surreply” and no others. Without the relevant facts, the Missouri Court of Appeals could not apply the law and dismissed the appeal. 
TODD J. and CAREY M. CROSSLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. KING CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents v. MUD BROTHERS STUCCO, INC. A/K/A or D/B/A OZARK CULTURED STONE, LLC, also F/K/A MUD BROTHERS STUCCO, INC., Third-Party Defendant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38899

Civil

No fraud shown on motion to set aside 
The law favored motions to set aside default judgments. One provision allowed circuit courts to set aside default judgments on elements that included good cause for the default. Good cause included negligence, but not recklessness, which described the movant’s “conscious choice to ignore the litigation” in the pending action for dissolution of marriage and hope for reconciliation. Another provision allowed circuit courts to set aside default judgments on elements that included a default induced by fraud. Fraud meant common law fraud, not merely false evidence, and respondent’s evidence at the evidentiary hearing on the motion showed that respondent would have prevailed honestly in an evidentiary hearing on the dissolution. “[Movant] cannot use [a motion to set aside] to litigate the contested issue of ownership of the Company in light of his conscious choice to ignore the petition for dissolution.” For that reason, the circuit court did not err in excluding the movant’s proffered evidence of contributions to that company. The movant did not argue in circuit court the allegations cited on appeal. Those allegations did not constitute a claim on non-marital property. And even if they did, they did not relate to setting the default judgment aside. The circuit court denied the motions and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Randa M. Techtow vs. Jesse T. Techtow 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87315 Consolidated with WD87320

Consumer

Recovery under contract but not MMPA 
In an action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for selling services by using a false promise, the plaintiff had to show that the the defendant intended never to perform on the promise before or during their working relationship, not simply that the defendant breached the parties’ contract. On a breach of contract claim, the record included the plaintiff homeowner’s testimony as to the value of that property and supported the award. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the plaintiff under the act and affirmed the award of damages for breach of contract. 
(Overview summary) 
Susan Brands, Respondent, v. Savvy Surrounding Style, LLC, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112731

Criminal

No Faretta hearing, new trial required 
The right to counsel included the right to waive counsel. Waiver of counsel was valid only if knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as determined by a circuit court’s colloquy during a Faretta hearing and a written waiver of counsel. The absence of a Faretta hearing was subject to review even without preservation. The circuit court failed to warn the defendant about the dangers of self-representation and explain available defenses so that colloquy was inadequate. Without preservation, proceeding without a written waiver of counsel was subject only to plain error review. Plain error always included proceeding without a written waiver of counsel unless the State showed that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary even without the written waiver. The State agreed that reversal was due. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the action for a new trial. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ANDREA WILLIAMSON, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38414

No self-incrimination defense under abandonment of a corpse statute 
Constitutional provisions barred compulsory self-incrimination while the statute on abandoning a corpse required persons to report the dead human bodies. The two did not conflict because corpse-reporting applied to everyone and not just persons who committed criminal offenses. “There is no constitutional right to” avoid statutorily mandated conduct “in order to avoid the possibility of legal involvement.” Whether the bin that contained the body was erroneously allowed in court, the Missouri Court of Appeals did not have to decide due to other overwhelming evidence of guilt. A defense expert’s qualifications on lethal levels of substances did not constitute qualification to opine as to cause of death. Cumulative evidence was always harmless, including testimony that the defendant had wiped down his car after the jury had already heard the defendant admit to doing so. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph J. DeJoie, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112814

No prejudice from late disclosure 
Rules required the State to disclose evidence and granted circuit courts wide discretion among remedies including exclusion. Exclusion was only possible when prejudice rose to “[f]undamental unfairness [meaning] a reasonable likelihood that an earlier disclosure of the requested evidence would have affected the result of the trial[,]” which was subject to cure by a continuance for investigation. And the appellant did not show investigation would have helped. Also, the evidence was cumulative and therefore harmless. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112740

Public safety exception to expungement discussed
Petitioner could seek expungement of criminal convictions. A complete application raised a presumption favoring expungement. Grounds for denial included justice, public welfare, and public safety. Petitioner had a long history of harassing and stalking victim, as well as baseless legal actions. Victim’s testimony by affidavit did not deprive petitioner of due process because the right to confront witnesses applied in criminal cases only, and not civil cases, and did not deny petitioner the right to cross-examination because no party called victim as a witness. Evidence cumulative of evidence admitted without objection could not have prejudiced petitioner. The circuit court denied the petition for expungement and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
DENNIS R. RYNO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38734

DWI

Reasonable grounds shown 
On appeal from the director of revenue’s revocation to circuit court, the director had the burden of proving that law enforcement arrested the appellant driver under reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant was driving while intoxicated. Reasonable grounds meant probable cause. Probable cause included the appellant’s speed over 30 mph beyond the speed limit and crossing center line and fog lines multiple times while fleeing an officer’s pursuit. Whether that arrest included probable cause to believe that driver was intoxicated did not matter because additional signs of intoxication appeared, resulting in a second arrest. Those signs included vomit on driver’s shirt, inability to stand unaided, glassy and bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol, and an uncooperative and belligerent attitude. The circuit court revoked driver’s license and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Daniel Andrade-Arellanos vs. Director of Revenue 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87757

Elections

Reproductive rights proposition’s ballot language re-written
Constitutional amendments proposed by joint resolution had to relate to a “single subject,” meaning “a readily identifiable and reasonably narrow central purpose.” The subject of reproductive rights was broad enough to include gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies; and venue and notice requirements for challenges to State laws governing reproductive health care. The circuit court found that the proposition met the single subject requirement and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in that regard. The Secretary of State had to prepare a ballot summary that was fair and sufficient, meaning that the statement accurately described the proposition’s central features and effects, in fifty words not counting articles. In an action challenging the language, the Secretary of State could offer no more than three revisions to the language and none after the action was pending in circuit court. The judgment was final when the circuit court made its conclusions of law on the language. Language did not meet the standard if it failed to restate any of [the proposition]’s central features [;]” failed to list the proposition’s main purpose first; falsely implied a change in law; or used a partisan, biased, argumentative, or politically charged term. The proposition failed to mention that the proposition would repeal voter-approved reproductive rights and imposed restrictions on reproductive rights; mischaracterized a limit on State interference with medical care as a guarantee of such care; and mischaracterized gender alteration as sex change. The Court of Appeals entered the judgment that the circuit court should have entered, including new language, and certified the new language to the Secretary of State.
(Overview Summary)
Anna Fitz-James vs. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88392

Employment security

Deficient appellant’s brief required dismissal 
Appellate courts had to remain neutral, and their opinions constituted precedential authority, so appellate courts would not rule on “incomplete and unsupported arguments” especially after an opportunity to correct deficiencies in the appellant’s brief. The appellant’s failure to comply with rules governing the statement of facts, points relied on, argument, and standard of review would have required the Missouri Court of Appeals to construct an argument on appellant’s behalf, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Victoria Amrine vs. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88066

Wrong issues appealed 
On appeal from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, appellate courts could review only the rulings that the commission made. The commission dismissed the claimant’s action for failure to file timely and did not reach the merits so the merits could not come before the Missouri Court of Appeals. The claimant’s appeal addressed only the merits of the claim, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Rita Pirez vs. Elwood Staffing Services, Employer, and Division of Employment Security 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87916

Evidence

Harassment proven by Facebook posts 
On a charge of second-degree harassment by texting, evidence of Facebook posts with “distinctive characteristics identifying the author” as the defendant were admissible, and the defendant’s denial did not require the circuit court to exclude the evidence. That evidence, the defendant’s claim of authorship, and evidence that the defendant’s phone was the source of the texting supported a finding of guilt. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DUSTIN WYNNE LEYBA, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38875

Propensity evidence analyzed 
Constitutional provisions allowed propensity evidence in certain criminal actions on a foundation that included whether undue prejudice substantially outweighed probative value. Probative value was high because of similar tactics described in the charged and uncharged offenses. Closing arguments and instructions ameliorated prejudice. Any evidence that was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence was not prejudicial at all. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JACKSON W. CHAMBERS, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38577

Autopsy photos were okay 
Lay witnesses could testify to their impressions of the defendant’s “mental or emotional state if the impressions [were] based on personal observation, do not address an ultimate issue, and are consistent with common experience.” Such testimony and multiple autopsy photographs were relevant to deliberation. And the defendant did not show unfair prejudice, in that the photographs was gruesome because the killing was gruesome, and the testimony was not outcome-determinative. No abuse of discretion occurred in the entry of that evidence into the record so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dairius Kinnie, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112427

Family

Deficiencies in appellant’s brief required dismissal 
Rules of appellate practice protected the neutrality of appellate courts. Failures to draft a complete statement of facts, announce a theory reporting reversal, show the preservation of an appealed ruling, and file a controverted exhibit as part of the record on appeal required the Missouri Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
In Re the Marriage of: Elke Gonzales-Flaharty vs. Mathew Flaharty 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87625

Notice was required before ruling on motions 
Due process required notice before depriving any person of property. The circuit court gave notice of a hearing on some pending motions, but not other “intertwined” motions regarding maintenance, and then entered judgment on the maintenance motions. “While the circuit court believed it had all of the evidence, a circuit court’s judgment should be based on evidence presented by the parties rather than the circuit court’s speculation regarding the evidence parties might present.” Judicial economy did not prevail over due process so the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the maintenance rulings and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Sherry L. Thompson, Appellant, v. Anthony Thompson, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113248

Employability thwarted maintenance 
The presence of evidence in the record supporting relief for the appellant did not require reversal of a judgment denying that relief when that judgment also had support in the record. Unemployment did not, alone, require an award of maintenance and evidence of employability supported an imputation of income. Factors affecting property division included marital misconduct but extramarital affairs after separation did not require a more unequal division, nor did past alcohol addiction under recovery for the past six years. The circuit court had discretion as to pro-rata payment of a child’s uninsured health expenses. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when denying a motion to re-open the record for determinations of the Social Security Administration because those determinations were not binding on the circuit court and the evidence supporting the determination was cumulative. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113129

Postnuptial agreement was invalid 
A spouse could waive their interest in marital property by postnuptial agreement. Postnuptial agreements were valid only on conscionable terms, including consideration, and if entered into “freely, fairly, knowingly, understandingly and in good faith and with full disclosure.” Those principles applied whether the property interests were inchoate or vested. The record showed that respondent had no chance to consider, consult counsel, and negotiate. Previous cohabitation in the marital residence did not constitute adequate consideration for waiver of marital rights in that residence. The circuit court did not err in treating the respondent’s waiver as a postnuptial agreement and denying enforcement so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Nicole M. Graham, Appellant, v. Douglas E. Graham, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112970

End of custody, end of child support 
Absent the adverse party’s request, any motion for continuance had to be in writing with a supporting verification or affidavit, and denial of a motion for failure to comply with those requirements was never an abuse of discretion. And re-opening the record for the appellant’s evidence negated any prejudice. In court-tried cases, reversal for erroneous admission of evidence cumulative of properly admitted evidence was “practically impossible” because the appellants could not show prejudice. Evidence of party statements in settlement negotiations was inadmissible. In determining child custody, the passage of time supported rebuttal testimony to update the circuit court on the child’s best interests. A “breakdown in communication and cooperation alone is sufficient to constitute a change of circumstances warranting the modification of legal custody” and the circuit court applied statutory factors in determining the child’s best interests. The respondent’s motion to custody asked for a corresponding adjustment to respondent’s child support obligation, which supported an end to that obligation when respondent received full sole physical and legal custody, and no finding of inability to pay that obligation was needed to eliminate the obligation. Calling the result “termination” instead of “elimination” did not alter that outcome. Circuit courts could award child support retroactively and the circuit court’s retroactive date was not arbitrary. An amended judgment required more than an expression of intent, and more than granting a motion to amend the judgment, it required the issuance of amended judgment; and when an amended judgment did not issue in time, the judgment was not amended and the motion to amend was overruled by operation of law. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment on appellant’s child support obligation, as the parties agreed, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
S.W., Respondent, v. K.H., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112541

Local government

St. Louis City Charter Commission okay 
Constitutional provisions allowed home rule for certain cities by charters, allowed for amendments to such charters by popular vote, and required proposed amendments to come from a city’s board of aldermen alone. Those provisions did not bar the city from delegating the drafting of amendments to a city commission created for that purpose. That commission had no authority to submit any proposed amendment to the voters. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the city and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Charles Lane, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113533

Orders of protection

Stalking shown 
The elements of a full order of protection against stalking included conduct causing “fear of danger of physical harm” in the plaintiff and in a reasonable person. Findings of those elements had support in evidence of the defendant’s escalating threats of property damage and challenges to physical altercations toward plaintiff and members of the plaintiff’s household. The plaintiff’s retaliation with “an offensive gesture” did not change that result and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment granting a full order of protection. 
(Overview summary) 
M.S.C., Respondent, v. S.W., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113307

Personal injury

Open and obvious danger described 
The defendant could prevail on summary judgment by establishing, beyond genuine dispute, facts that negate an element of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff claimed damages from a dangerous condition of the defendant city’s property, an exception to sovereign immunity. The record showed that the city had notice of a defective step at a curb, the defendant did not show that the hazard was open and obvious, and yellow paint did not necessarily absolve the defendant of liability. Genuine disputes remained as to material facts, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s summary judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Tina Hursman vs. The City of Sedalia, Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87919

Post-conviction

No relief on different theories for biased juror 
The movant’s appeal and motion both cited the same allegation: a biased venire person unrehabilitated and allowed to sit on the jury. The motion brought a constitutional challenge under the right to a jury trial. The appeal charged ineffective assistance of counsel. The former did not preserve the latter so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the movant’s appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
William M. Chamness vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87658

Amended motion late, initial motion pending 
The rule in effect on the date of sentencing governed procedure on motions “regardless of any later amendments.” The initial motion was timely and the governing rule allowed two 30-day extensions for filing an amended motion. But the first extension expired the day before the circuit court granted it, so the second extension was void, so the amended motion — filed within the void second extension — was untimely. The abandonment doctrine did not apply because post-conviction counsel was retained and not appointed. Therefore, only the initial motion was before the circuit court. The amended motion was not identical to the initial motion, and the circuit court ruled on the amended motion only, so that judgment was not final. Without a final judgment, the Missouri Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the action to circuit court for a ruling on the initial motion. 
JAMES D. WOOLARD, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38799

No relief on claim filed late 
Timely filing was an element of any claim. The movant filed an amended motion out of time through unappointed counsel, and the circuit court ruled on the amended motion, which was error. The abandonment doctrine did not apply to unappointed counsel so relief was possible only on claims in the initial motion. The initial motion did not include the claim on which the movant appealed, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Barry E. Anderson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113203

Real estate

No attorney fees in unlawful detainer 
The statute on tenancies at will, including the notice requirements, did not govern tenancies under lease contracts. The parties’ lease contract was breached by the appellant, the record showed, and the appellant did not show that that finding was against the weight of the evidence. The action occurred after dismissal of a contemporaneous bankruptcy action so no violation of the automatic stay occurred. The circuit court action was for unlawful detainer. The action for unlawful detainer existed solely under statutes and those statutes did not provide for an award of attorney fees. An award of attorney fees was allowed in the parties’ contract but unlawful detainer actions did not enforce contracts, and no contract action or action for rent and possession, was ever filed. The circuit court erred in awarding attorney fees, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to the attorney fees award, and affirmed the rest of the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Kevin Dochterman, Respondent, v. Shana Lindsey, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112915

Tax

Only one local sales tax allowed on marijuana 
Constitutional provisions allowed local governments to apply a tax on retail sales of marijuana: cities within their corporate bounds, and counties in unincorporated areas only. The circuit court erred in holding otherwise, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Vertical enterprise, LLC vs. Buchanan County; Director of Revenue 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87291

Assessed value was zero dollars 
Seller taxpayer sold a property with a building, reserving certain rights, and splitting the property in two: one part with the building for a greater amount of the sales price, and another with the rest of the purchase price for the reserved rights. Those rights had no value when assessed, despite the assigned price, so the State Tax Commission assessed seller’s interest in the other part at zero. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that decision because the reservations consisted of negative easements and unused interests. 
(Overview summary) 
Tracy Baldwin, Assessor, Clay County, Missouri vs. Quiktrip Corporation 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87829

Business license tax procedure discussed 
A circuit court action was available for “persons” aggrieved by telecommunications businesses’ violations of law but “persons’ did not include cities. In actions for accounting and declaratory judgment, an adequate remedy at law was a defense, which the multiplicity of businesses subject to assessment did not negate. Cities could levy a business license tax and collect it like sales tax. Collecting sales tax conditioned an action in circuit court on having completed an assessment and notice before filing. Plaintiff city did not allege that it had given the defendant telecommunications businesses any notice of any assessment’s results. The circuit court dismissed the city’s petition and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
City of Jefferson, Missouri, Appellant, vs. Sprint Communications, Inc., et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113433

Workers’ compensation

Medical fee dispute resolution affirmed 
For compensable injuries, employers had to pay fair and reasonable healthcare expenses for the employee. Disputes were subject to resolution before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, with the burden of proof on the provider, who “always bears the risk of non-persuasion.” The opportunity or need to contest a provider’s prima facie case, sometimes called a “shift” in the burden of proof, was really just “coming forward with competing evidence[.]” The commission properly applied those “universal principles[.]” The record included documentation and testimony that supported the commission’s award. 
(Overview summary) 
S&B Hauling & Construction and Utah Business Insurance Company of America vs. Center For Surgical Specialties, P.C. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88030

No claim for retaliation against the state 
The State was generally subject to statutes governing workers’ compensation, and workers’ compensation statutes provided liability for employers who retaliated against claimants, but that liability was tort liability. Statutes specifically governing State liability expressly reserved sovereign immunity against such claims. “[The State] has the duty and obligation to comply with the workers’ compensation laws], but has not waived tort liability in connection therewith.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the State. 
ELLIS WOODRUM, Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38940