Legal Representation for Appeals

• Civil appeals
• Probate appeals
• Family law appeals
• Juvenile appeals and termination of parental rights appeals

Georgia Hayes v. Courtney Pharmacy et al., WD63205, 2003-2004. The appeal following $2.2 billion plaintiff’s verdict, which resulted in the conversion of the case into class action and subsequent successful settlement for the defendant. The appeal was dismissed by agreement of the parties.

In re the Marriage of Stephanie King, n/k/a Stephanie Dobbs v. Chance Aaron King, ED88923, 223 S.W.3d 232, (Mo.App. September 18, 2007). The court of appeals' decision was in favor of our client, affirming the Modification Judgment.

J.C.W. and T.D.W., minors, by their Next Friend, Kelly K. Webb v. Jason L. Wyciskalla, ED89632, (Mo.App.ED May 6, 2008). The appeal by the petitioner, opposing party, following successful judgment for our client following three-day custody trial. The court of appeals reversed the judgment. Due to conflict in the law between the Western District Court of Appeals and the Eastern District Court of Appeals, this case was accepted for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.

J.C.W. and T.D.W., minors, by their Next Friend, Kelly K. Webb v. Jason L. Wyciskalla, SC89404, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc January 27, 2009). The original judgment, in favor of our client, was affirmed on appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for additional evidence on the calculation of child support arrearages. Due to the Missouri Supreme Court’s explanation of what constitutes and does not constitute jurisdiction, this case has now been cited as controlling precedent in hundreds of subsequent cases, and was cited in Missouri Lawyers Weekly in 2009 as one of the most influential appellate cases of the year.

State Ex Rel Carol Pirolo-Carnell v. Judge Nathan Stewart, ED100760 (December 5, 2013). Writ filed on behalf of our client, the petitioner/appellant, following the trial court’s denial of a change of the guardian ad litem. Writ was denied by the Eastern District Court of Appeals, but this case was accepted for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.

State Ex Rel Carol Pirolo-Carnell v. Judge Nathan Stewart, SC93847 (February 25, 2014). Writ was granted by the Missouri Supreme Court, and the mandate was sent back to the trial court. Following this, the trial court appointed a new guardian ad litem, which later led to the successful settlement of this case in our client’s favor.

In the Interest of B.A.M., ED109303 (May 19, 2021). The appeal following the trial court’s judgment for Termination of Parental Rights against our client. Following filing the Appellant’s Brief, Appendix, and Exhibits, the attorney at the Missouri Attorney General’s Office (not the same attorney as at the trial level) conceded to our Point Relied Upon Number II, that the Termination of Parental Rights Social Study and Report had been untimely filed, which was a reversible error. The court of appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial, which was in our client’s favor.

Patricia Gipson et al. vs Ronald Hayman et al, ED109248 (November 16, 2021). The appeal following the judgment against defendants on a probate matter with regards to the issue of the amendment of a trust document. The defendants’ argument on appeal was that the court inappropriately used the standard of “contractual capacity,” instead of “testamentary capacity;” and that the standard of “undue influence” was not applied properly, as the burden should have shifted back to the plaintiff. The defendant prevailed on the first argument above, but failed on the second argument, and therefore the judgment was affirmed.

In the Interest of D.L.P., T.H., W.C.H. A.G.H. and R.S.M.H., ED109493 (December 7, 2021). The appeal following the trial court’s judgment terminating of Parental Rights against our client. Our argument on appeal was that Natural Mother's parental rights were terminated due to her being poor. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with instruction to work towards reunification of children with Natural Mother. On Point II, the court of appeals found that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence, as “courts may not terminate parental rights under section 211.447(3) where the Children’s Division fails in its duty to assist parents.” Additionally, on Point IV, the court of appeals found that the trial court failed to provide the statutory standard of “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” in its judgment, and that this was a reversible error.

In the Interest of M.M.B., SD37865 (Notice of Appeal filed December 15, 2022). The appeal following the trial court’s judgment terminating the Parental Rights of our client, Natural Father. The appellate case is currently pending.

In the Interest of T.A.G., ED111463 (Notice of Appeal filed February 24, 2023). Our office prevailed on our post-trial motion for Natural Mother, setting aside her judgment terminating her parental rights. The appeal is still pending on Natural Father's appeal.

In the Interest of M.P. and M.P., SD38069 (Notice of Appeal filed May 23, 2023). The appeal following the trial court’s judgment terminating the Parental Rights of our client, Natural Mother. The appellate case is currently pending.