distinct clause in Missouri

2025See id.

2020See Green, 494 S.W.3d at 527 (citing Mo. R.

2025Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999))). 7 In the argument section of her brief, Snethen asserts the Board’s 2023 order “is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record[.]” This is a separate and distinct claim from the one raised in her point relied on—that the Board’s action was unauthorized by law.

2025Compare § 490.065.1 (setting forth one standard to govern in certain categories of cases), with § 490.065.2 (setting forth a distinct standard to govern in all other cases). “[T]he rules of evidence in effect at the time of trial govern.” Stiers v. Dir. of Rev., 477 S.W.3d 611, 618 (Mo. banc 2016); State ex rel.

2025Tipler v. Gardner, 506 S.W.3d 922, 925 (Mo. banc 2017).

2025See Crowell v. Cox, 561 S.W.3d 882 , 890 n.12 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (claim that Commission’s decision was not supported by competent and substantial evidence was separate and distinct from claim that Commission misapplied the law).

2022King, 821 S.W.2d at 500 (“The critical distinction between collateral estoppel and res judicata is that the former operates only as to issues previously litigated but not as to matters not litigated in the prior action though such might properly have been determined.”) (emphasis in original).

2019Goad v. Treasurer of State, 372 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011).6 Amended claims which create a new or distinct claim are not saved from the statute of limitations under Ford.

2018See Higgins v. Ferrari , 474 S.W.3d 630 , 635 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015).

2016Cf. Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n. 11 (Mo.banc 2014) .("a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge_are distinct claims” that must be raised "in separate points relied on ... to be preserved for appel-lale review”); Henson v. Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) ("[a] submission of error without reasoned argument does not allow the reviewing court to make a decision”); Maxon v. Leggett & Platt, 9 S.W.3d 725 , 729 (Mo.App.S.D.2000) (overruled on different.grounds, by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection,

2016Cf. Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n. 11 (Mo.banc 2014) .("a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge_are distinct claims” that must be raised "in separate points relied on ... to be preserved for appel-lale review”); Henson v. Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) ("[a] submission of error without reasoned argument does not allow the reviewing court to make a decision”); Maxon v. Leggett & Platt, 9 S.W.3d 725 , 729 (Mo.App.S.D.2000) (overruled on different.grounds, by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection,

2015See Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co., 771 S.W.2d 922, 924, 925 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989); see also 21 Am.

2015Saidawi v. Giovanni’s Little Place, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 501, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (holding piercing corporate veil is independent claim) 6 ; but *369 of. 18 C.J.S.

2015The Holaus Court held that the occupational disease claim did not “relate back” to the original claim for purposes of avoiding the statute of limitations because the second amended claim “create[d] a new and distinct claim” that “did not arise from the incident alleged [to have caused the injuries] in employee’s first two petitions.” Id. at 80-81.

2012See generally Carpenter v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 697, 704 (Mo. banc 2008).

2012Cf. United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 542 (10th Cir.1987) (rejecting a defendant’s argument that her indictment was unconstitutionally multiplicitous and her assertion that only one crime occurred where she took multiple sexual photographic images of her two children during one photography session; discussing the allowable "unit of prosecution” at issue when the statute criminalized use of a minor to engage in "any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct,” and concluding that "each use of a minor to create a visual depiction constitutes a

2011See Spencer, 302 S.W.3d at 803 (amendment providing additional details as to specific nature of occupational disease claim is not a new and distinct claim); Ford, 252 S.W.2d at 652-53 (amended claim merely perfected and amplified original claim, and therefore related back to filing date of original claim, where amendment claimed occupational disease (silicosis) due to exposure to harmful substances, rather than injury by accident due to swallowing sand on single occasion (as in original claim)); cf. Holaus v. Wm.

2011See Spencer, 302 S.W.3d at 803 (amendment providing additional details as to specific nature of occupational disease claim is not a new and distinct claim); Ford, 252 S.W.2d at 652-53 (amended claim merely perfected and amplified original claim, and therefore related back to filing date of original claim, where amendment claimed occupational disease (silicosis) due to exposure to harmful substances, rather than injury by accident due to swallowing sand on single occasion (as in original claim)); cf. Holaus v. Wm.

1993The La-chterman court held that “[e]vidence of repeated acts of sexual abuse of children demonstrates, per se, a propensity for sexual aberration and a depraved sexual instinct and should be recognized as an additional distinct exception to the rule against the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes.” Id. at 768 ; see also State v. Taylor, 735 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Mo.App.1987).

1993The Lachterman court held that "[e]vidence of repeated acts of sexual abuse of children demonstrates, per se, a propensity for sexual aberration and a depraved sexual instinct and should be recognized as an additional distinct exception to the rule against the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes." Id. at 768 ; see also State v. Taylor, 735 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Mo.App.1987).

1987General Electric Company v. Gaertner, 666 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Mo. banc 1984) which held a claim for contribution between defendants or joint tort feasors is a separate and distinct claim from the tort claim brought by plaintiff against the defendants.