City poised to make a splash: AI gives Branson’s $30 million water appeal a 90% chance?

After a five-day trial in October 2025, a Taney County court awarded a $30 million verdict in the case of CUSHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff vs. CITY OF BRANSON, MISSOURI. The City of Branson appealed, filing its Appellant Brief on July 17, 2026. The legal documents used in this article are more than 108 pages in length. ^#1

As a reporter, my main goal is to provide the clearest and most accurate information, giving the reader “who, what, why, when and how” of the situation being reported. To help analyze and break down the documents involved in this case, I used an artificial intelligence tool to generate a summary based on my “prompt.” I have personally reviewed and edited this AI summary to ensure its accuracy. Rather than rewrite it so it’s more human, I am choosing to share this AI summary, with appropriate editing, below because it is as accurate, probably more so, than this reporter’s 85-year-old brain could excerpt information and interpret it. Said another way, in this instance, “I’d be a fool to do anything different.”

My AI prompt question was: Based on the information in the original 2001, what is your opinion of the likelihood that the city will win its appeal? Give me a score on a 1-10 scale, with 10 indicating the highest likelihood they’ll win and 1 the lowest, along with the rationale for the score.

The AI response said, I would rate the likelihood of the City of Branson winning its appeal as a 9 out of 10 [The 9 out of 10 is a subjective determination by the AI].” The City has presented a highly compelling case with multiple independent grounds for reversal, rooted in clear contractual language and established Missouri law.

Here is an analysis of why the City is highly likely to prevail:

1. Misapplication of Contract Law - The trial judge made a foundational error by relying on introductory “Whereas” recitals—which merely stated the developer’s “desire” to gain a water supply for commercial development—to impose a multi-million-dollar duty on the City. Under Missouri law, general statements of purpose in a recital cannot override clear, operative contract provisions. The operative text of the 2001 agreement explicitly assigned the responsibility for designing and constructing water facilities and handling the resulting “water volume requirements” to the developer, not the City.

2. Invalid “Taking” Theory (Inverse Condemnation) - The developer sued for inverse condemnation, claiming the City “took” their property rights by changing its mind and abandoning a 2021 plan to build a water tower. However, the City’s brief establishes that under Missouri and federal law, a constitutional taking requires affirmative governmental conduct, such as a physical invasion, appropriation, or direct damage to the property. Merely abandoning a contemplated public works project does not constitute a taking. Furthermore, Missouri courts do not permit a party to transform a basic breach-of-contract claim into a constitutional inverse condemnation claim merely because the defendant is a municipality.

3. Critical Jury Instruction Errors - The trial judge removed the foundational question of the City’s contractual “duty” from the jury, deciding it himself as a matter of law. Consequently, the judge issued Instruction 7, which directed the jury to find a taking simply if they believed the City “abandoned plans” to construct the water tower. The City correctly argues this instruction omitted the essential elements of an inverse condemnation claim—failing to require the jury to find an actual physical invasion or appropriation—and gave the jury an unlawful “roving commission” to impose liability.

4. Flawed and Excessive Damages - Even if the City were somehow found liable, the $30 million verdict is highly vulnerable. The jury awarded damages for a “permanent” taking, resulting in a judgment that required the developer to deed roughly 202 acres to the City. However, the developer’s own evidence showed that the lack of water was a remediable infrastructure issue that could be entirely fixed by building a water system for approximately $4.5 million. Missouri law dictates that when property damage can be cured, recovery is strictly limited to the lesser of the lost property value or the cost of restoration. Additionally, the $30 million valuation itself was provided by a witness who admitted he was not a licensed real estate appraiser and did not use standard appraisal methodologies.

Given these compounded errors—ranging from ignoring integration clauses to misapplying constitutional property law to allowing excessive damages based on a flawed methodology—the appellate court has several strong, independent legal grounds to either reverse the $30 million judgment outright or, at a minimum, remand the case for a new trial.

^#1 The Appellant Brief filed by the City of Branson appealing the $30 million verdict awarded in the CUSHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC Plaintiff vs. CITY OF BRANSON, MISSOURI case, consisting of more than 100 pages, and the 2001 Sewer Services, Facilities, and Annexation Agreement between the City of Branson and Cushman Properties, LLC, and White River Investments, consisting of eight pages.