Act for Missouri Logo

Here to Educate, Activate, and Engage Missouri Citizens!

Join us in our mission through meaningful actions and initiatives.

Find Your Missouri Legislators

Should Judge Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey Be Retained?

Voters in the Eastern District will see this question on the November 3, 2026 ballot. We reviewed 13 of her rulings from 2024 to 2026, including the Planned Parenthood investigation case. Here is what we found, what the court could have ruled instead, and where Act for Missouri comes down. We keep those three things separate so you can use the first two even if you disagree with the third.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Ballot question
“Shall Judge Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey be retained?” A majority of yes votes keeps her. This question appears on ballots in the Eastern District.
Appointed
December 2023, by Gov. Mike Parson (R), to the seat vacated when Judge Kelly Broniec was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court. This is her first retention vote.
Term if retained
12 years.
Official committee recommendation
The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee recommends retention. It made the same recommendation for all 50 judges it reviewed this year.

How this page works

The Record

Facts only. What the judge ruled, how colleagues voted, and links to the opinions. We say plainly when something is contested or when we have not reviewed it.

What the court could have ruled

The ruling as issued and a real alternative, each with its strongest support from the opinions. Every alternative points to a lower court’s ruling, a party’s argument, a dissent, or an earlier court decision.

Act for Missouri's View

Our opinion. We say which result we think better follows the law, and where the judge’s choice shows a view different from ours. It is the only part of this page that is editorial.

Jump to: The Record • What the court could have ruled • Act for Missouri's View • Sources

The Record

Facts only

Background

Judge Navarro-McKelvey has a bachelor’s degree in political science and Spanish and a law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She was elected an associate circuit judge in St. Charles County in 2016 and a circuit judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit in 2020. Gov. Parson appointed her to the Eastern District in December 2023. In 2026 she presides over her panel in Division Four.

What we reviewed

We read 13 rulings in full or in the parts that decide them, 11 she wrote and two she joined that Judge Page wrote (the two City of St. Louis v. State rulings). They run from July 2024 to July 2026 and cover government power, civil rights and employment, criminal appeals, family law, insurance, property, and benefits. Her record on the appeals court is short, about two and a half years, and we found 65 opinions she wrote in that time. Thirteen is a sample of those, not all of them. We chose rulings for what they showed about her approach and to cover politically sensitive cases. Two were chosen by a fixed rule so our picking could not steer the result: Kline and Davis are her earliest and latest 2025 opinions that were not dismissals. We did not read her earliest and latest 2024 and 2026 opinions, so the fixed rule covers one year only. Because her time on this court is short, there is less to go on than for a judge of long service, and we say so in our view.

Reads statutes and constitutions by their wordsVerified

In Planned Parenthood v. Bailey she held that the Attorney General’s investigative power reaches “any person” with relevant information, because those are the words of the statute. In both City of St. Louis v. State rulings, written by Judge Page and joined by her, the panel held that the legislature’s text barred reimbursement from the state fund. In Erby she read the survivorship statute’s word “personal injuries” to include discrimination and whistleblower claims.

Holds government to the law, and applies it for government when it requiresVerified

She wrote for a panel that ruled for the Attorney General in Planned Parenthood v. Bailey, and joined two opinions for the State in City of St. Louis v. State. She ruled against the state unemployment agency in Kline because the record did not show it had notified a claimant’s lawyer, and against a state university in Brennan, a sex-discrimination case, when she affirmed a jury verdict for a professor.

Protects the individual when the law requires itVerified

She reinstated a dead employee’s discrimination and whistleblower claims (Erby), vacated a protective order the evidence did not support (R.B. v. J.B.), restored a jury trial that a trial court had cancelled as a sanction (Masters), and ordered joint legal custody where the record did not support giving one parent sole control (Thornburg). She also affirmed a child-sex-abuse conviction (Whitbey) and upheld an insurer’s exclusion against the opioid-settlement trust (Opioid MDT II).

Defers to trial courts and enforces appeal rulesVerified

She refused to review an error the defendant had invited (Whitbey), dismissed an appeal for lack of a final judgment (Davis), and held a party to the record (Kline, R.B.). She also reversed trial courts when the law required it, most often on legal errors rather than on weighing evidence.

Judgment callsJudgment calls

In several rulings the law allowed more than one result. Examples: letting a jury verdict stand for hostile work environment (Brennan), reversing a protective order on the evidence (R.B.), requiring joint custody over a dissent (Thornburg), reversing a settlement enforcement order over a dissent (Apperson), and ruling that the amended post-conviction motion was never properly before the court (Davis). Three of these drew a dissent from a colleague.

Applies the same approach each timeVerified

Across 13 rulings she used the same method: the text, binding precedent, and the standard of review. Her results do not line up with one kind of party. This rests on a sample of a short record, not on every opinion she wrote.

Ethics, temperament, independence, clarity of writingNot yet reviewed

We have not independently reviewed these. The official committee evaluation is linked in the sources.

Rulings, newest first

Ruling 1: Insurance coverage for opioid claims (Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II v. ACE American Insurance, July 21, 2026)

The case. Mallinckrodt and related companies made and sold opioids and faced more than 3,000 lawsuits. They went into bankruptcy in 2020, and a trust (the Trust) was created to settle opioid claims and to pursue the companies’ insurance coverage. The Trust sued several insurers for coverage for bodily-injury claims based on allegedly deceptive “unbranded” marketing of opioids. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the insurers.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey (presiding), Judge Torbitzky, and Judge Clayton. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • The primary policies exclude bodily injury arising out of “your product,” and the policies define “your product” to include representations about it and the warnings that come with it. The injuries here arise from alleged false representations about the products, so the exclusion applies.
  • The umbrella and excess policies apply only to claims made and reported in the policy period. The lawsuits were filed years after the policies expired and none were reported in time.

The panel affirmed summary judgment for the insurers.

Ruling 2: A protective order between former friends (R.B. v. J.B., April 28, 2026)

The case. R.B., a law enforcement officer, got a full order of protection against J.B., a barber who had once employed him, on a stalking theory. Both men represented themselves. The trial court found R.B. credibly feared J.B.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey (presiding), Judge Gaertner, and Judge Dowd. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • A stalking order requires an unwanted course of conduct that caused the petitioner a fear of physical harm, and a reasonable one.
  • The evidence showed rumors and reports to his employers, not fear of physical harm.

The panel reversed, vacated the order, and sent the case back for a new trial, because R.B. might be able to make a case.

Ruling 3: Enforcing a settlement by email (Apperson v. Davis, April 28, 2026)

The case. Mouna Apperson sued a law firm and two lawyers under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Respondents offered $1,000 and a release by email, Apperson replied that the terms had “some vagueness” but “sounds fine,” and a seven-page settlement document followed with confidentiality and non-disparagement terms that applied only to Apperson. Apperson rejected it. The circuit court enforced it on the pleadings.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey (presiding) wrote the opinion. Judge Dowd concurred. Judge Gaertner dissented.

What the panel held, and the dissent.

  • Whether the parties agreed on the confidentiality and non-disparagement terms, and which terms were essential, were disputed facts that could not be decided on the pleadings.
  • Judge Gaertner would have enforced the two essential terms, $1,000 for a release of all claims, and sent the rest back for a hearing on the non-essential terms.

The panel reversed and sent the case back for an evidentiary hearing.

Ruling 4: A child sex-abuse conviction (State v. Whitbey, March 3, 2026)

The case. A jury convicted Christopher Whitbey of fourteen counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree for abusing his stepson. He argued the trial court should have thrown out, on its own, a forensic examiner’s testimony that 2 to 3 percent of children’s abuse allegations are false. He also pointed out that the written judgment said “999 years” on one count when the judge had said “life” out loud.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey (presiding), Judge Gaertner, and Judge Dowd. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • The defense invited the testimony by asking the examiner whether children can lie, so he could not use it to get a reversal.
  • The oral sentence controls. The written judgment must be corrected to say life imprisonment, a clerical fix.

The panel affirmed the convictions and remanded only to correct the written sentence.

Ruling 5: A post-conviction motion filed late (Davis v. State, December 23, 2025)

The case. Demetrius Davis was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. A private lawyer entered the case for his post-conviction motion and filed an amended motion late. The motion court heard it anyway and denied it. The State argued the court should not have considered the late filing.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding), Judge Navarro-McKelvey, and Judge Lay. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • The rule that excuses a late amended motion when appointed counsel abandoned the client applies only to appointed lawyers, not to a lawyer who volunteered to appear.
  • The motion court had no authority to hear the late amended motion and could only decide the claims in Davis’s own timely motion.

The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment and sent the case back so the court can decide his original claims. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 6: A university professor’s sex-discrimination verdict (Brennan v. Harris-Stowe State University, September 16, 2025)

The case. Beverly Brennan taught speech and theater at Harris-Stowe for twenty years. A jury found for her on a hostile work environment claim based on sex under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The university argued she did not present enough evidence, among other points. The circuit court denied its motion and awarded her attorney’s fees.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey (presiding), Judge Gaertner, and Judge Dowd. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • She produced enough evidence for a jury to find a hostile work environment, and the jury could disbelieve the university’s evidence.
  • Her claim was timely under the continuing-violation rule, because conduct both before and after the filing cutoff was part of one pattern.
  • The university did not preserve several of its arguments, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which it did not plead.

The panel affirmed and awarded Brennan her attorney’s fees on appeal.

Ruling 7: The Planned Parenthood investigation (Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region v. Bailey, May 6, 2025)

The case. Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent Planned Parenthood Great Rivers a civil investigative demand under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) as part of an investigation into gender-transition services for minors. The demand had 54 requests. The case is about that investigation. It is not about abortion. Planned Parenthood called the demand outside the MMPA and unconstitutional. The circuit court upheld the demand but blocked production of anything protected by HIPAA unless each patient waived.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding), Judge Navarro-McKelvey, and Judge Lay. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • The MMPA covers medical goods and services, and the Attorney General may investigate unfair practices in providing them. The statute lets him send a demand to “any person” believed to have relevant information, and does not require naming that person as a target.
  • Planned Parenthood’s constitutional claims failed: the demand is not an unreasonable search, not a malicious invasion of privacy, and does not violate the separation of powers.
  • HIPAA does not require setting aside the demand. De-identified records are not protected, and patient waiver is not the only way to disclose. Planned Parenthood must respond with a privilege log and redactions.
  • The panel stressed that no MMPA claim has been filed against Planned Parenthood, and that it reviewed only the validity of a pre-claim subpoena.

The panel affirmed in part, reversed the HIPAA ruling, and sent the case back so Planned Parenthood must respond. Reaction was split: Planned Parenthood said it was disappointed and was weighing its next steps, and the Attorney General defended the investigation as protecting children.

Ruling 8: Reimbursement from the state legal expense fund (City of St. Louis v. State, March 25, 2025)

The case. In 2012 a woman sued over the 2011 police shooting of her father. A later motion alleged that two DNA reports were not disclosed in discovery, and in 2019 the City paid $250,000 to settle that claim. The City sought reimbursement from the state legal expense fund. The circuit court ruled for the City.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding) wrote the opinion. Judge Navarro-McKelvey and Judge Lay joined it. We include it because she joined it, not because she wrote it.

What the panel held.

  • A statute (§ 84.345.2) ends reimbursement for claims against police officers once St. Louis took local control of its police force on September 1, 2013. The discovery claim was not presented until 2017.
  • The panel did not reach the State’s first argument, because the second decided the case.

The panel reversed and directed judgment for the State.

Ruling 9: A dead employee’s discrimination claims (Erby v. St. Louis County, February 11, 2025)

The case. Hazel Erby, the County’s director of diversity, equity and inclusion and a former councilwoman, sued the County for discrimination and for whistleblower retaliation. She died during the case, and her husband continued it as personal representative. The circuit court dismissed the claims on the ground that they ended when she died.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding), Judge Navarro-McKelvey, and Special Judge Chapman. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • The survivorship statute keeps “personal injuries” alive after death. Retaliation and discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act are injuries to a person’s rights, so they survive.
  • The public-employee whistleblower claim is closely related and survives for the same reason.

The panel reversed the dismissal and sent the case back.

Ruling 10: A divorce and custody (Thornburg v. Thornburg, January 28, 2025)

The case. James Thornburg appealed a judgment dissolving his marriage and giving his wife sole legal custody of their two children. He said the marriage was not irretrievably broken, that the record did not support sole custody, and that the parenting plan was flawed.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion. Judge Page concurred. Special Judge Breckenridge concurred on the divorce and dissented on custody.

What the panel held, and the dissent.

  • The record supported the divorce, because the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him.
  • The record did not support sole legal custody. Missouri law prefers joint legal custody when it serves the children’s best interests, and sole custody must rest on substantial evidence that the parents cannot act as a parental unit.
  • The dissent would have affirmed, because the trial judge could have weighed the evidence that way.
  • The father abandoned his third point at argument.

The panel affirmed the divorce and remanded for a judgment of joint legal custody.

Ruling 11: An unemployment overpayment hearing (Kline v. Division of Employment Security, January 21, 2025)

The case. Iria Kline was found to have been overpaid state and federal pandemic unemployment benefits. She had a lawyer of record. The agency set telephone hearings and she appeared with her husband, without her lawyer.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding), Judge Navarro-McKelvey, and Special Judge Breckenridge. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the panel held.

  • A claimant’s lawyer of record is entitled to notice of the hearing, and the record had no competent evidence that the agency sent it.
  • The Commission’s decisions were not supported by sufficient competent evidence.

The panel reversed and sent the case back. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 12: A jury trial cancelled as a sanction (Masters v. Dawson, July 2, 2024)

The case. Ethel Masters sued Decedent’s son, Jacob Dawson, to recover five vehicles. The court granted her possession on summary judgment. When Dawson missed a pretrial conference, the court treated him as in default, cancelled his jury trial on damages, and entered judgment.

The panel and the vote. Judge Navarro-McKelvey wrote the opinion. Judge Torbitzky concurred. Chief Judge Clark dissented.

What the panel held, and the dissent.

  • The vehicles passed to Masters by sole ownership or survivorship, so the estate was not a necessary party, and the circuit court had jurisdiction.
  • The Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial, and Rule 69.01 and § 510.190 are the exclusive ways to waive it. Cancelling the jury as a sanction for missing a pretrial conference was an abuse of discretion.
  • The dissent would have held that Dawson had not raised his constitutional point properly, and that his conduct showed he waived the jury.

The panel affirmed possession, reversed the damages judgment, and sent the case back for a jury trial on damages.

Ruling 13: Reimbursement from the state legal expense fund (City of St. Louis v. State, September 3, 2024)

The case. The City sought reimbursement from the state legal expense fund for a $641,546.94 payment to a man arrested by a St. Louis police officer in 2012, who sued in 2016. The circuit court ruled that the fund must reimburse the City.

The panel and the vote. Judge Page (presiding) wrote the opinion. Judge Odenwald and Judge Navarro-McKelvey joined it. We include it because she joined it, not because she wrote it.

What the panel held.

  • After the 2005 Smith decision, the legislature barred the fund from paying claims against the police board and officers, and voters passed Proposition A in 2012, which ended the fund’s liability for the St. Louis police on September 1, 2013.
  • Following the Supreme Court’s Holmes decision, the date that counts is when the claim was made, not when the officer acted. The suit was filed in November 2016, so the fund does not reimburse the City.

The panel reversed and directed judgment for the State.

What the court could have ruled

The ruling as issued and a real alternative. Not our conclusion.

For each ruling, the alternative below is one that a judge, a trial court, or a party actually argued. Neither column is our conclusion. That comes in the next section. Where a ruling drew a dissent, the dissent is the alternative.

Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II v. ACE American Insurance (2026)

What the panel ruled

  • The exclusion for injuries arising out of “your product” applies, because the alleged injuries come from false statements about the products.
  • The umbrella and excess policies fail for lack of timely claims.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the Trust)

  • Treat the unbranded marketing campaign as separate from “your product” so the exclusion does not reach it.
  • Resolve doubts in favor of coverage for the Trust.

Support for the alternative: the Trust’s single point on appeal that the exclusion should not apply.

R.B. v. J.B. (2026)

What the panel ruled

  • No evidence of fear of physical harm, so no stalking order.
  • Vacate and retry.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the trial court and R.B.)

  • Affirm, because the trial court found R.B.’s fear credible after hearing both men.
  • Defer to the trial judge, who saw the witnesses.

Support for the alternative: the trial court’s finding that R.B.’s fear was credible.

Apperson v. Davis (2026)

What the panel ruled

  • Disputed facts about the confidentiality terms, so no judgment on the pleadings.
  • Hearing required.

Support for this ruling: Judge Navarro-McKelvey and Judge Dowd.

What it could have ruled (Judge Gaertner, dissenting)

  • Enforce the two essential terms, $1,000 for a release of all claims.
  • Send the non-essential terms back for a hearing.

Support for the alternative: Judge Gaertner’s dissent, and the circuit court’s judgment.

State v. Whitbey (2026)

What the panel ruled

  • Defense invited the testimony, so no plain-error review.
  • Correct the written sentence to life.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Whitbey)

  • Review the testimony for plain error and consider whether the 2 to 3 percent statistic told jurors the victim was likely truthful.

Support for the alternative: Whitbey’s argument that the testimony invaded the jury’s role.

Davis v. State (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • The late amended motion was not properly before the motion court.
  • Dismiss the appeal and send the case back for the original claims.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Davis and the motion court)

  • Treat the volunteer lawyer like appointed counsel, so abandonment applies and the late amended motion is heard.
  • Reach the four ineffective-assistance points.

Support for the alternative: the motion court’s decision to hear the amended motion, and Davis’s four points on appeal.

Brennan v. Harris-Stowe State University (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • Enough evidence for the jury to find a hostile work environment.
  • Verdict and fees stand.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the University)

  • Find the evidence too thin or too old, and the claim untimely, so no verdict.
  • Order judgment for the University or a new trial.

Support for the alternative: the University’s arguments on appeal.

Planned Parenthood v. Bailey (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • The demand is valid under the MMPA and statute.
  • HIPAA does not bar production of de-identified records, with a privilege log and redactions.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Planned Parenthood)

  • Hold that medical services fall outside the MMPA and refuse to enforce the demand.
  • Or require it to name Planned Parenthood and give evidence of wrongdoing first.

Support for the alternative: Planned Parenthood’s five points on appeal, and the trial court’s HIPAA limit.

City of St. Louis v. State (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • No reimbursement, because the claim was made after the 2013 transfer.
  • Judgment for the State.

Support for this ruling: Judge Page’s opinion, which she joined.

What it could have ruled (the City)

  • Reimburse the City, as the circuit court did.

Support for the alternative: the circuit court’s summary judgment for the City.

Erby v. St. Louis County (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • Discrimination and whistleblower claims survive death.
  • Reinstate the petition.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the County)

  • Hold that the claims abated at death, as the circuit court did.

Support for the alternative: the circuit court’s dismissal and the County’s argument that these are not “personal injuries.”

Thornburg v. Thornburg (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • Divorce granted.
  • Sole legal custody reversed; joint legal custody ordered.

Support for this ruling: Judge Navarro-McKelvey and Judge Page.

What it could have ruled (Special Judge Breckenridge, dissenting in part)

  • Affirm sole legal custody to the mother, because the evidence could support it.

Support for the alternative: the dissent and the circuit court’s custody judgment.

Kline v. Division of Employment Security (2025)

What the panel ruled

  • No competent evidence that the agency sent notice to the lawyer.
  • Reverse and remand.

Support for this ruling: the panel, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the agency)

  • Affirm, because Kline attended the hearing herself and the overpayment itself was not disputed.

Support for the alternative: the Commission’s decisions.

Masters v. Dawson (2024)

What the panel ruled

  • Possession stands; the jury trial on damages is restored.

Support for this ruling: Judge Navarro-McKelvey and Judge Torbitzky.

What it could have ruled (Chief Judge Clark, dissenting)

  • Affirm in full, because the constitutional point was not properly raised and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Support for the alternative: the dissent and the circuit court’s judgment.

City of St. Louis v. State (2024)

What the panel ruled

  • No reimbursement.
  • Judgment for the State.

Support for this ruling: Judge Page’s opinion, which she joined.

What it could have ruled (the City)

  • Reimburse the City, because the arrest happened in October 2012, before the transfer.

Support for the alternative: the City’s argument and the circuit court’s judgment.

Act for Missouri's View

Everything in this box is our opinion.

Act for Missouri's position: retain Judge Navarro-McKelvey.

Retention is a vote on whether a judge has earned another 12-year term. We put the burden on the judge to show that she has, and we can only weigh what we were able to verify. When the evidence is thin, we lean toward not retaining. Her record is short, about two and a half years, so we read a large share of what she has done: 13 rulings, 11 that she wrote and 2 she joined, on a wide range of subjects. Below, we say for each one whether the law required the result, allowed either result, or did not support it, and where we might have gone the other way.

How we label a ruling

Law required this result We may be disappointed in the outcome, but the judge was right to rule as he or she did.

Law allowed either result Both readings have real support. The judge's choice shows how he or she weighs competing principles. It is not an error.

Law did not support this result The judge went beyond what the law allowed.

Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II v. ACE American Insurance (2026)Law required this result

Our reading. The policy words exclude injuries that arise from representations about the insured’s product, and the umbrella and excess policies cover only claims reported in time. The panel read an insurance contract by its terms.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Navarro-McKelvey. Many readers will be disappointed that opioid-victim settlement money cannot reach these insurers, but the contracts say what they say.

R.B. v. J.B. (2026)Law allowed either result

Our reading. The statute requires fear of physical harm. R.B. described rumors and reports to his employers, not fear for his safety. A judge who deferred more to the trial court’s finding of credible fear could have affirmed.

Where we differ. We do not differ with her approach. An order of protection restricts a person’s freedom and carries lasting consequences, and holding the petitioner to the statute’s test is reasonable. She sent the case back for a new trial rather than ending it.

Apperson v. Davis (2026)Law allowed either result

Our reading. Whether an email exchange made a binding settlement depends on which terms were essential, and the record left that in dispute. A colleague would have enforced the two essential terms and sent the rest back for a hearing.

Where we differ. We do not differ with her method. Both readings are serious. Her view favors a hearing before a person is bound to confidentiality and non-disparagement terms that applied only to her.

State v. Whitbey (2026)Law required this result

Our reading. A defendant who elicits testimony cannot use it to get a conviction thrown out, and an oral sentence controls over a clerical mistake in the written judgment. Both are settled rules.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Navarro-McKelvey. The conviction stands and the written sentence now matches what the judge said in court.

Davis v. State (2025)Law allowed either result

Our reading. The abandonment rule helps a prisoner whose appointed lawyer missed a deadline. She held it does not reach a lawyer who volunteered to appear. The words of the rule support her, but a close reader could have extended it.

Where we differ. We might have gone the other way. A prisoner serving life without parole has a lawyer who missed a deadline, and the motion court heard and denied the claims on their merits. Her result may delay a decision for years. We do not call it an error, because the rule’s text points toward her reading. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Brennan v. Harris-Stowe State University (2025)Law allowed either result

Our reading. On appeal the court asks only whether the jury had enough evidence and whether the claim was timely. She deferred to the jury and applied the continuing-violation rule. A judge who found the evidence thinner, or older conduct outside the filing window, could have ruled for the University.

Where we differ. We might have gone the other way. A hostile-work-environment verdict against a public university rests on a long and contested record, and the filing deadline exists so old claims do not come in through a pattern theory. She applied the rule as written and as the cases read it, so we do not call her ruling an error.

Planned Parenthood v. Bailey (2025)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. The MMPA’s words are broad, the cases already apply it to medical services, and the statute reaches “any person” with relevant information. That part was required by the text. The panel’s HIPAA ruling, and its choice to decide it on a thin record instead of sending it back for more development, was a judgment call.

Where we differ. We might have gone the other way on one point. The panel decided the HIPAA question without litigated exceptions or a record of what the records contain, and it said so. A narrower ruling that only reversed the patient-waiver rule would have left more for the trial court. Readers who disagree with the investigation itself should note that the court found no wrongdoing and decided only that the Attorney General may ask. The remedy for that is the legislature and the voters, not this court.

City of St. Louis v. State (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. The statute ends reimbursement for claims against the police once local control began, and the claim was made in 2017. She joined Judge Page’s opinion.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Navarro-McKelvey. Readers may sympathize with the family in the underlying case, but the question was who pays, and the statute says not the state.

Erby v. St. Louis County (2025)Law allowed either result

Our reading. The survivorship statute keeps “personal injuries” alive, but it does not say whether discrimination and whistleblower claims count. The circuit court said no. She said yes, reading the injury as one to a person’s rights.

Where we differ. We do not differ with her result. A public employee who reports wrongdoing should not lose the claim because she died before trial, and the statute’s words fit that reading. The other reading was also available, which is why we call it a judgment call.

Thornburg v. Thornburg (2025)Law allowed either result

Our reading. Missouri law prefers joint legal custody, and sole custody needs substantial evidence that the parents cannot act as a unit. She found it missing. A colleague would have deferred to the trial judge, who saw the witnesses and could have weighed the evidence the same way.

Where we differ. We do not differ with her approach. Respecting the legislature’s preference for both parents in a child’s life is consistent with the law, and the dissent is also on solid ground in deferring to the trial court.

Kline v. Division of Employment Security (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. A person with a lawyer of record is entitled to have the lawyer notified, and the Commission could not show it was. Without competent evidence in the record, the decision cannot stand.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Navarro-McKelvey. She held a state agency to its own notice rules, and she sent the case back. She did not say Kline owes nothing. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Masters v. Dawson (2024)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. Ownership by survivorship put the vehicles outside the estate, so possession was settled by the record. Whether cancelling a jury trial as a sanction for missing a conference was allowed was a closer call, but the rule and statute spell out how a jury can be waived. A dissent saw it the other way.

Where we differ. We do not differ with her result. The jury right is in the Constitution, and a trial judge’s wish to keep a docket moving does not outweigh it. The dissent’s view also had force, so we call this part a judgment call.

City of St. Louis v. State (2024)Law required this result

Our reading. Under the Supreme Court’s Holmes decision, the claim date controls, and this claim was made in 2016. She joined Judge Page’s opinion.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Navarro-McKelvey. The result follows the statute and the Supreme Court, and a change would have to come from the legislature.

What this adds up to. We reviewed 13 rulings. In 7 of them the main holding was one the law required, and in 8 she made a judgment call where the law allowed either result (some had both). In none of them did we find that the law did not support the result. Three drew a dissent from a colleague, and in each the dissent was a serious reading of the law. Her record shows a judge who follows the text, applies the standard of review, and reaches results that do not line up with one kind of party.

Where we might have gone the other way. On three rulings we might have decided differently, and we say why above: Davis (we would have asked more of the abandonment rule), Brennan (we would have looked harder at the age of the conduct), and Planned Parenthood v. Bailey (we would have decided less on the HIPAA question). In none of the three do we say the law forbade her result.

What limits this. She has been on this court since December 2023. Her record is short, and 13 rulings is a sample of about 65 she wrote. We did not read her earliest and latest opinions from 2024 or 2026, and we did not read the Hollingshead opinion from December 2025. We read for high-profile cases and found the Planned Parenthood investigation and the two St. Louis reimbursement cases. We cannot rule out one we missed. We do not rely on the committee’s recommendation, which was to retain every judge it reviewed this year.

Why we land on retain. Our standard puts the burden on the judge, and we lean toward not retaining when the record is thin. A two-and-a-half-year record is short, but this one is not thin: it includes the most politically sensitive case in the district, spans many subjects, includes three decisions with a dissent, and shows no ruling that went beyond the law. If you weigh a short record more heavily than we do, or disagree with the Planned Parenthood ruling, that is a reasonable position.

A disclosure. Act for Missouri opposed the 2024 Amendment 3 and opposes the 2026 Amendment 3 on this year’s ballot. Neither measure bears on the rulings above. The Planned Parenthood case concerns an Attorney General investigation of gender-transition services for minors, not abortion. We say so in case it matters to how you read the rest of this page.

What to do with this. Read the record and the alternatives first. The official committee evaluation is linked below. If you weigh the same facts differently, that is a reasonable position, and the vote is yours.

Sources

Every fact in The Record comes from the court opinions or official pages below. Read them yourself.

Last updated October 9, 2026.

Share this post

Facebook Share on X
← Back to Homepage