Missouri Lawyers Media Missouri legal news and public notices
Corporate Law
Conversion
Fiduciary Duty
Damages
Where plaintiffs in an action involving claims of conversion and the breach of fiduciary duty challenged a judgment that awarded the defendants money damages on their cross claim of breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of one individual defendant who was not a party to the cross claim and was not a member of the limited liability company, and the court also misapplied the law by awarding defendant Geera 100 percent of the damages incurred by the LLC because that would constitute a windfall.
Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Sai Nath LLC v. Patel (MLW No. 79371/Case No. SD37419 – 12 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Burrell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Wright County, Bock, J. (Jason Newman Shaffer, Springfield, and Richard Leo Rollings Jr., Camdenton, for appellant) (Jason W. McPherson, Mountain Grove, for respondent).
Criminal Law
Child Molestation
Propensity Evidence
Where a defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree statutory sodomy and second-degree child molestation, the probative value of propensity evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, and the trial court did not err by admitting the testimony, and the trial court also did not err in denying the defendant’s requests for a mistrial.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Robinson (MLW No. 79373/Case No. SD37356 – 9 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Borthwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jasper County, Crane, J.
Improper Commentary
Mistrial Request
Where a defendant challenged his conviction for possessing a weapon inside the Department of Corrections, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a mistrial based on a comment by a state witness that the defendant had “an aggressive nature with staff” because the court properly found that the comment was not prejudicial.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Williams (MLW No. 79370/Case No. SD37474 – 5 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Burrell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Mississippi County, Dolan, J. (Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, and Jake Robert Yates, Jackson, for appellant) (Ashley Dawn Murphy, Jefferson City, and Claire Poley, Charleston, for respondent).
Phone Search
Motion To Suppress
Standing
Where a defendant challenged his conviction in a child pornography possession case, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the contents of his cellphone at trial, the defendant lacked standing to challenge the legality of the phone search because he repeatedly denied ownership of the phone, so he abandoned any expectation of privacy.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Copley (MLW No. 79369/Case No. SD37492 – 5 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Burrell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Polk County, Replogle, J. (Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant) (Daniel Neal McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent).
Contracts
Real Property
Foreign Country
Forum Selection Clause
Where relator filed a “caution” with the registrar of lands in Belize claiming that he held an interest in real estate arising from a lawsuit that he had filed against the property’s owners in a Missouri court, and the defendants argued that the filing of the caution violated the parties’ forum selection clause, the circuit court exceeded its authority when it ordered the removal of the caution on the basis that it violated the forum selection clause, and the preliminary order in mandamus is made permanent.
Permanent writ issued.
State ex rel. Kevin Knasel v. Brown (MLW No. 79372/Case No. SD37861 – 17 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Ahuja, J.) Original proceeding on petition for writ of mandamus (Derek Adam Ankrom and Jason Clarke Smith, Springfield, for relator) (Joseph Dow Sheppard III, Austin Jay Preston and Kirk A. Kaczmarek, Springfield, for defendant).
Probate
No Contest Clause
Safe Harbor
Interlocutory Appeal
Where appellant beneficiaries and trustees sought an interlocutory appeal from a determination that the trust’s no-contest clauses did not apply to the relevant suit, the appeal is dismissed because the trustees did not timely exercise their right to interlocutory appeal as provided by the statute, and no other statute provides for appeal of the court’s safe harbor determination at this time.
Appeal dismissed.
Thomas v. H’Doubler (MLW No. 79374/Case No. SD37483 – 7 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Goodman, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Greene County, Holden, J. (Christopher Francis Weiss, Springfield, for respondent) (Derek Adam Ankrom, Kathryn Ann Millington, Jean M. Ryan, David Alan Healy and Alexandra Henson, Springfield, for appellant).
