IN THE MATTER OF THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF CLAUDE HASTY, a/k/a CLAUDE J. HASTY, a/k/a CLAUDE JOHN HASTY

CONCURRING OPINION

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J.

I concur in the clearly reasoned principal opinion of the majority. I write separately, however, because I believe a few additional observations are appropriate.

Although it is proper to deny review where an appellant fails to make an argument regarding a portion of the analysis critical to a claim, our sister districts often note the rule before making a complete analysis of the issue. See, e.g., Byers v. Cheng, 238 S.W.3d 717, 726 (Mo.App.E.D.2007); In re G.G.B., 394 S.W.3d 457, 472 (Mo.App.E.D.2013): In cases where important interests are at stake,…