Respondents motion in Missouri

2010To affirm the trial court, we must find that Respondents’ motion “sets forth undisputed facts which establish every element of [the] affirmative defense[ ].” Transatlantic Ltd. v. Salva, 71 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Mo.App.

2010Transatlantic Ltd. v. Salva, 71 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Mo.App.

2008Charles County v. Wegman, 90 S.W.3d 142, 145 (Mo.App. 2002), contending: “In determining whether an appeal is frivolous, this Court will consider whether the points raised by an appellant [concern] a well-settled area of law and whether the appellant points to any persuasive support in existing law or makes a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or for the establishment of new law.” Respondents contend that “Appellant cannot make a persuasive or good faith argument that he can state a claim against MIRMA and Genesis prior to obtaining a judgment aga

2008Charles County v. Wegman, 90 S.W.3d 142, 145 (Mo.App. 2002), contending: "In determining whether an appeal is frivolous, this Court will consider whether the points raised by an appellant [concern] a well-settled area of law and whether the appellant points to any persuasive support in existing law or makes a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or for the establishment of new law." Respondents contend that "Appellant cannot make a persuasive or good faith argument that he can state a claim against MIRMA and Genesis prior to obtaining a judgment aga

2022See Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997).

2010Appellant appeals to this Court only the trial court’s dismissal of Counts IV, and VI, the negligence-based counts. 2 Trial Court’s Dismissal of Negligence-Based Counts In dismissing Appellant’s negligence claim (Count IV), the trial court, relying on Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997), explained that “Missouri simply does not recognize ‘negligence actions’ against religious organizations based on the sexual misconduct of clergy.” In dismissing Appellant’s negligent supervision, retention, and failure to warn claim (Count V), the trial court, again relying on Gibson , explained t

2014The fact that O’Brien subsequently acquiesced or approved of the alleged wrongdoing does not negate the fact that Appellant initially revealed such information to her or at least gives rise to a factual dispute on the matter. 9 .Respondents further cite to Margiotta v. Christian Hospital Northeast Northwest, 315 S.W.3d 342 (Mo. banc 2010), for the proposition that Appellant failed to disclose specific threats to public safety.

2011Northeast Northwest, 315 S.W.3d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 2010).

2025Id. (“The declaratory judgment act is not designed to adjudicate hypothetical or speculative situations...”).

2025Louis, 563 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Pisoni v. Steak ‘N Shake Operations, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)). 2 All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2024). 3 In their single point relied on, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Missouri recognizes an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence and Appellants sufficiently pled the elements of that cause of action.

2025Louis County Charter (Charter) regarding the removal of other county department directors, While understanding this, we hold 1) the circuit court lacks the authority to review or act on local ballot matters and is powerless to remove Proposition B from the ballot absent specific statutory authority (Galkowski, 426 S.W.3d at 640-41 ); 2) the circuit court is further precluded from awarding declaratory relief because Respondents failed to demonstrate a 3 justiciable controversy exists (Mo. Soybean Ass'n v, Mo. Clean Water Comm’n, 102 8.W.3d 10, 25 (Mo. banc 2003)) and 3) Respondents’ claim is no

2025Kansas City Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 505 S.W.3d at 799.

2025Louis, 563 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Pisoni v. Steak ‘N Shake Operations, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)). 2 All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2024). 3 In their single point relied on, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Missouri recognizes an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence and Appellants sufficiently pled the elements of that cause of action.

2024D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cty. 17 As footnoted above, all other claims have been addressed by the trial court or voluntarily dismissed, leaving only the claims determined by summary judgment. 18 While summary judgment was also granted in favor of Michael, Marc, and Heather Tregnago, those parties did not join in Respondents’ brief nor did they file a separate Respondents’ brief. 17 Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. banc 2019); In re Smith, 351 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. 2011).

2024See Nixon, 281 S.W.3d at 908 .

2024See Koppe, 318 S.W.3d at 240 ; Mercer, 515 S.W.3d at 241–44.

2024Chastain v. City of Kansas City, 968 S.W.2d 232, 237 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)).

2024D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cty. 17 As footnoted above, all other claims have been addressed by the trial court or voluntarily dismissed, leaving only the claims determined by summary judgment. 18 While summary judgment was also granted in favor of Michael, Marc, and Heather Tregnago, those parties did not join in Respondents’ brief nor did they file a separate Respondents’ brief. 17 Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. banc 2019); In re Smith, 351 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. 2011).

2023Smith, 409 S.W.3d at 423 (citing Premier Golf Mo., LLC v. Staley Land Co., LLC, 282 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)) (“Here, the issues were clear to all parties, which is evidenced by City’s response to Respondents’ conflict with state law claim in both its answer to the Third Amended Petition and its memorandum in opposition to Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.”).

2023See id. at 645-46 .

2023See Wooten, 552 S.W.3d at 122 (internal citation omitted). lowa produced an exhibit showing it issued and served garnishments on Respondents in satisfaction of 11 the default judgment.

2023See Wooten, 552 S.W.3d at 122 n.2.

2021“A brief does not substantially comply with Rule 84.04(c) when it highlights facts that favor [that 6 party] and omits facts supporting the judgment.” Prather v. City of Carl Junction, Mo., 345 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); accord Ordinola v. Univ.

2021In response to Bacon’s three claims arising from the allegedly unpaid $69,283 (i.e., breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment), Respondents’ motion for summary judgment argued that each claim is subject to the five-year statute of limitations in § 516.120(1) and is time-barred because the claims accrued as early as March of 2005 when Respondents 9 See, e.g., Sabine v. Leonard, 322 S.W.2d 831, 837-38 (Mo. banc 1959) (recognizing that, “[a] promissory note is a written contract for the payment of money and a failure to pay any installment thereof when it becomes due would be a b

2020See Blumer, 234 S.W.3d at 594 ; Kirchoff, 403 S.W.3d at 112 ; Cima, 416 S.W.3d at 324 .

2019See Ground Freight Expeditors, LLC v. Binder, 359 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011); see also Miller, 519 S.W.3d at 474 n.2.

2019See Ground Freight Expeditors, LLC v. Binder, 359 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011); see also Miller, 519 S.W.3d at 474 n.2.

2019“Because the trial court failed to state a basis for its dismissal of the petition, we presume the dismissal was based on at least one of the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss[.]” Miller, 519 S.W.3d at 475 (internal marks omitted). 12 Section 67.1545 provides the authorization for a CID to hold a sales tax election, describes the form of the ballot that must be used in the election, and sets forth requirements relating to the collection and use of the sales tax if it is ultimately approved by a majority of the qualified voters in the election. 9 115—which contains Missouri’s general elec