DOC motion in Missouri

2024Servs., P.C., 554 S.W.3d 471, 475 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). 8 We find DOC’s third Point Relied On marginally sufficient under Rule 72.01, although it does not specify the actual error (in overruling DOC’s objection to Mother’s testimony) and it fails to mention in its preservation statement that it objected to Mother’s testimony during trial, which is required to preserve the issue in addition to raising it in a post-trial motion. 11 We do not decide “whether the evidence was admissible or should have been excluded, [but] whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting or excluding the

2019Servs., P.C., 554 S.W.3d 471, 475 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 DOC’s claim of error as to the exclusion of Dr. Elizabeth Arnold’s testimony is not preserved for appellate review, as DOC made no offer of proof as to what her testimony would have been at the damages trial.

2024Coroner, 572 S.W.3d 543, 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (judgment finding the Coroner violated the Sunshine Law was not a final and appealable judgment because it left unadjudicated whether the violation was knowing or purposeful)).5 After we dismissed the appeal, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the issues of whether the DOC’s violation was knowing or purposeful.

2023In her petition, Hynes asked the trial court for relief through civil penalties and to “award [her] costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this claim pursuant to RSMo [section] 610.027.3 due to [the DOC’s] willful violation of the Sunshine Law . . . .” These damages depended on both the DOC’s violation of the Sunshine Law, and that the violation was done “purposely” and “knowingly.” See Glasgow, 572 S.W.3d at 548 (holding that the imposition of civil penalties and attorney fees due to a “violation that was done ‘knowingly’ or ‘purposely’” are not separate, independent cla

2025In making this argument, Vickers ignores the fact that the current version of § 558.031 expressly provides that the language he relies on is limited “to offenses for which the offender was sentenced on or 9 This determination is consistent with this court’s prior determination that “much of Vickers’s time in custody was due to either a parole violation on an unrelated case or his federal charge and conviction.” State v. Vickers, 560 S.W.3d 3, 18 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). 10 For two reasons, it is irrelevant that the sentencing court found Vickers would have been in the custody of either the Jackso

2025In making this argument, Vickers ignores the fact that the current version of § 558.031 expressly provides that the language he relies on is limited “to offenses for which the offender was sentenced on or 9 This determination is consistent with this court’s prior determination that “much of Vickers’s time in custody was due to either a parole violation on an unrelated case or his federal charge and conviction.” State v. Vickers, 560 S.W.3d 3, 18 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). 10 For two reasons, it is irrelevant that the sentencing court found Vickers would have been in the custody of either the Jackso

2024All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2023). 2 In an appeal from the denial of a directed verdict or JNOV, “this Court considers the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and disregards all contrary evidence and inferences.” Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

2024The decision to admit or exclude evidence at trial “lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667, 674-75 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting Nelson v. Waxman, 9 S.W.3d 601, 603 (Mo. banc 2000)).

2024No specifics were given about which element(s) of the three claims failed or why. 7 Objections at trial must be specific enough to allow “the opponent an opportunity to correct the error and the court to correctly rule on it.” Morphis v. Tracker Marine, LLC, 640 S.W.3d 481 , 483 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Goins, 306 S.W.3d 639, 646 (Mo. 7 At least ten potential elements (not counting damages) might have supported DOC’s motion.

2024No specifics were given about which element(s) of the three claims failed or why. 7 Objections at trial must be specific enough to allow “the opponent an opportunity to correct the error and the court to correctly rule on it.” Morphis v. Tracker Marine, LLC, 640 S.W.3d 481 , 483 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Goins, 306 S.W.3d 639, 646 (Mo. 7 At least ten potential elements (not counting damages) might have supported DOC’s motion.

2024The decision to admit or exclude evidence at trial “lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667, 674-75 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting Nelson v. Waxman, 9 S.W.3d 601, 603 (Mo. banc 2000)).

2024The Missouri Supreme Court has stated the “law of the case doctrine generally applies to issues that could have been raised . . . during the first appeal,” but [w]hen a judgment is reversed completely, “the case is put in the same posture in which it was before the judgment was entered . . . [and] the parties’ rights are left wholly unaffected by any previous determination that was reversed, so that a judgment that is reversed and remanded stands as if no trial has yet been held.” 4 We note that none of the admitted facts at issue in Eivins I were deemed admitted under Rule 59.01 or Rule 61.01

2024Kieffer, 376 S.W.3d at 655 ; Century II, 87 S.W.3d at 423 .

2024“The standard required to prove a ‘purposeful’ violation under section 610.027 is greater—the party must show that the defendant . . . act[ed] with ‘a conscious design, intent, 12 Because we find substantial evidence supported the determination that the DOC’s violation was “purposeful,” we need not analyze whether the DOC’s violation was “knowing.” See Laut, 491 S.W.3d at 199 (it is a “far greater burden” to prove a purposeful violation than it is a knowing violation). 18 or plan to violate the law and did so with awareness of the probable consequences.’” Id. (internal marks omitted) (quoting

2024“The standard required to prove a ‘purposeful’ violation under section 610.027 is greater—the party must show that the defendant . . . act[ed] with ‘a conscious design, intent, 12 Because we find substantial evidence supported the determination that the DOC’s violation was “purposeful,” we need not analyze whether the DOC’s violation was “knowing.” See Laut, 491 S.W.3d at 199 (it is a “far greater burden” to prove a purposeful violation than it is a knowing violation). 18 or plan to violate the law and did so with awareness of the probable consequences.’” Id. (internal marks omitted) (quoting

2024“The standard required to prove a ‘purposeful’ violation under section 610.027 is greater—the party must show that the defendant . . . act[ed] with ‘a conscious design, intent, 12 Because we find substantial evidence supported the determination that the DOC’s violation was “purposeful,” we need not analyze whether the DOC’s violation was “knowing.” See Laut, 491 S.W.3d at 199 (it is a “far greater burden” to prove a purposeful violation than it is a knowing violation). 18 or plan to violate the law and did so with awareness of the probable consequences.’” Id. (internal marks omitted) (quoting

2020Thus, the dismissal of the unserved defendants without prejudice effectively terminated the litigation and, therefore, the dismissal is appealable, and we have jurisdiction to review Rauch’s point appealed. 3 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018) unless otherwise noted. 4 “Although [Rauch] appears pro se, he ‘is subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs.’” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732 , 734 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Kim v. Won Il Kim, 443 S.W.3d 29, 30 (

2020Thus, the dismissal of the unserved defendants without prejudice effectively terminated the litigation and, therefore, the dismissal is appealable, and we have jurisdiction to review Rauch’s point appealed. 3 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018) unless otherwise noted. 4 “Although [Rauch] appears pro se, he ‘is subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs.’” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732 , 734 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Kim v. Won Il Kim, 443 S.W.3d 29, 30 (

2020Thus, the dismissal of the unserved defendants without prejudice effectively terminated the litigation and, therefore, the dismissal is appealable, and we have jurisdiction to review Rauch’s point appealed. 3 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018) unless otherwise noted. 4 “Although [Rauch] appears pro se, he ‘is subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs.’” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732 , 734 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Kim v. Won Il Kim, 443 S.W.3d 29, 30 (

2019Terry v. Mossie, 59 S.W.3d 611, 612 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (“’Normally, an appellate court will not review evidence excluded by the [circuit] court unless a specific and definite offer of proof was made at trial . . . show[ing] . . . : (1) what the evidence will be; (2) the purpose and object of the evidence; and (3) each fact essential to establishing the admissibility of the evidence.’”). 10 Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81, 101 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019See Johnson v. McCullough, 306 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Mo. banc 2010). 16 employment actions at issue.” The DOC also sought to exclude “testimony regarding other litigation, claims, or allegations or unrelated discrimination or bad acts against MDOC or its employees.” During a hearing on the DOC’s motion in limine, the DOC argued that it was specifically seeking to exclude evidence of the Malloy report because it contained evidence of other claims of discrimination by parties not involved in the case.

2019Jones appeals. 4 Standard of Review “Statutory interpretation raises a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Eckert, 491 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Mo. App. 2016).

2019Terry v. Mossie, 59 S.W.3d 611, 612 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (“’Normally, an appellate court will not review evidence excluded by the [circuit] court unless a specific and definite offer of proof was made at trial . . . show[ing] . . . : (1) what the evidence will be; (2) the purpose and object of the evidence; and (3) each fact essential to establishing the admissibility of the evidence.’”). 10 Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81, 101 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019Rhea v. Sapp, 463 S.W.3d 370, 375 (Mo. App. 2015). 1 Because the jury found in favor of the DOC on Dixson’s race discrimination and hostile work environment claims, we have not included the facts supporting those claims in this opinion. 2 While this case was pending, Dixson filed a motion to strike portions of the DOC’s appendix and Points I, III, and IV of the DOC’s brief.