Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Don't miss
Home / Opinions / Courts / Court of Appeals, Southern District / Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Digest: May 16, 2022

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Digest: May 16, 2022

Civil Practice

Order Of Protection

Child Protection

Motion To Renew

Where appellant challenged the trial court’s grant of petitioner’s timely motion to renew a full order of child protection, the appellant failed to show that the provisions of the section for issuing an ex parte order of child protection or for renewal of an order are ambiguous, so the appellant’s claim that there was no substantial evidence upon which the trial court could have reasonably found that expiration of the order would place the child in present danger of abuse lacked merit.

Judgment is affirmed.

Woodard v. Conde (MLW No. 78285/Case No. SD37047 – 6 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Lynch, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Stoddard County, Preyer, J. (Michael L. Jackson, Cape Girardeau, for appellant) (James Michael McClellan, Sikeston, for respondent) (Joe Briney Welborn, guardian ad litem) (Keith Pratt Allen, Benton, for juvenile).


Order Of Protection

Lack Of Transcript

Where appellant challenged a judgment entering a full order of protection, a problem with the sound recording equipment was discovered after the appellant timely ordered the transcript, and no transcript was available for review, so the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand to the trial court.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Collins v. Bannister (MLW No. 78287/Case No. SD37464 – 3 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Sheffield, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Wright County, Veenstra, J. (John Luther Young, Springfield, for appellant) (Scott Birch Stinson, Mountain Grove, for juvenile) (Briauna Collins, pro se).


Criminal Law

Public Assistance Benefits

Unlawful Receipt

Repealed Statute

Where a defendant challenged her conviction for unlawful receipt of public benefits, the defendant was charged with a violation of a statute that had been repealed and replaced, and the defendant suffered a manifest injustice when she was found guilty of a felony offense, rather than a misdemeanor, without the jury making all of the requisite findings to support the felony classification, so the judgment is vacated and reversed and remanded.

Judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions.

State v. Pliemling (MLW No. 78283/Case No. SD36831 – 11 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Goodman, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Iron County, Parker, J. (Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia, for appellant) (Sarah Elizabeth Ernst, Jefferson City, for respondent).


Domestic Relations

Motion To Reopen

Attorney Fees

Where a wife challenged the denial of her motion to reopen a dissolution case for new evidence, the trial court properly exercised careful and extensive consideration of the evidence, so the claim was unpersuasive, and the judgment is affirmed because the wife also did not show that the court failed to make specific findings of abuse as required by statute, and the awards of attorney fees and deficiency judgment debt were not an abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

Wasson v. Wasson (MLW No. 78284/Case No. SD37034 – 20 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Francis Jr., J.) Appealed from circuit court, Taney County, Stephens, J. (Christopher John Swatosh, Ava, and Michele Louise Wilson, Branson, for appellant) (James Randal Howell, Ozark, and Teresa Rieger Housholder, Marshfield, for respondent).


Workers’ Compensation

Denial Of Benefits

Risk Source

“Arise Out Of”

Where a claimant challenged the denial of workers’ compensation benefits after she suffered a knee injury at work, the injury arose out of the particularized working conditions and requirements of her job, the injury flowed from the particularized environment created by the employer, and she was wearing employer-recommended non-skid shoes that contributed to the injury, so the commission erred in finding that the injury did not arise out of her employment and that the claimant was exposed to the same risk source in normal, non-employment life.


Non-Employment Life

Dissenting opinion by Sheffield, J.: “I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the Commission’s final award denying Durr’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits because Durr failed to demonstrate that the risk involved is not one to which she would have been equally exposed in normal nonemployment life.”

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Durr v. Clarks Mountain Nursing Center (MLW No.78286/Case No. SD37212 – 14 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Francis Jr., J.) Appealed from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Therese Ann Schellhammer and Ronald L. Little, Poplar Bluff, for appellant) (Mark Robert Kornblum and Mary Anne Lindsey, St. Louis, for respondent).