Missouri Supreme Court adopts Houston v. Crider framework for against-the-weight-of-the-evidence claims on appeal

Seasoned appellate lawyers know there are sometimes standards that don’t appear in the procedural rules and haven’t been explicitly adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court. One of those standards applied by the intermediate appellate courts over the past decade has been the framework for making not-supported-by-substantial-evidence and against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenges on appeal following court-tried civil cases that was first set out in Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010).

As we know, in Murphy v. Carron, the Missouri Supreme Court set out the separate standards for challenging a judgment in court-tried civil cases: the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or if erroneously declares or applies the law. 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). In Houston v. Crider, the Southern District set out “a distinct analytical framework” for each of the evidentiary challenges. 317 S.W.3d at 186-87. First, the court explained the requirement for a not-supported-by-substantial-evidence challenge:

A not-supported-by-substantial-evidence challenge requires completion of three sequential steps:

1. Identify a challenged factual position, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;
2. Identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition; and,
3. Demonstrate why that favorable evidence, when considered along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, does not have probative force upon the proposition such that the trier of fact could not reasonably decide the existence of the proposition.

Id. at 187. The court expounded that an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires four sequential steps:

1. Identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;
2. Identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition;
3. Identify the evidence in the record contrary to the belief of that proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court’s credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit; and
4. Demonstrate why the favorable evidence, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, is so lacking in probative value, when considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in that proposition.

Id.

These frameworks were applied by each of the three districts of the appellate court for fifteen years without explicit approval from the Supreme Court, and the courts regularly rejected evidentiary challenges that did not follow the framework set out in Houston. Weeks v. City of St. Louis, 721 S.W.3d 873, 877 n.5 (Mo. banc 2025) (collecting cases).

In November of this year, however, the Missouri Supreme Court finally put its stamp of approval on the framework for against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenges in Weeks v. City of St. Louis when it “expressly adopt[ed] the Houston framework. Id. at 877.

In that case, after explicitly adopting the Houston framework, the Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the trial court’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence, stating that the appellant did not identify all of the pertinent, favorable facts (step two), did not resolve conflicting evidence consistent with the trial court’s implicit credibility findings (step three), and, therefore, failed to demonstrate why, in the context of the entire record, the favorable evidence was so lacking in probative value it failed to induce belief in that proposition (step four). Id. at 877-78. Based on the appellant’s failure to follow the necessary framework from Houston, the Court determined that the argument was stripped of any analytical value or persuasiveness. Id. at 878 (quoting Houston, 317 S.W.3d at 189).

Weeks did not include any not-supported-by-substantial-evidence challenges, so the Supreme Court did not expressly adopt or otherwise address that framework from the Houston case. Despite this lack of explicit approval at this point, it would be wise for any appellate practitioner to follow the framework in Houston for that type of challenge as well.

And if this framework seems onerous, it appears that is the point. Indeed, the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court have stated repeatedly that appellants making an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge have “chosen a difficult path, as ‘[t]his Court rarely has reversed a trial judgment as against the weight of the evidence under the Murphy v. Carron standard.’” Id. at 876 (quoting Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 52 (Mo. banc 2012). For a recent example of a successful challenge, see Body Treats Etc., LLC v. Tarrillion, 720 S.W.3d 664 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025).

Therefore, if you’re planning to make an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge (or a not-supported-by-substantial-evidence challenge, for that matter), follow the framework set out in Weeks, Houston, and many other appellate cases relying on Houston for each challenged factual position.