instead “pleaded generally that [the employer] was violating federal safety regulations” without “specifying] the regulations,” the plaintiffs petition was correctly dismissed as “[t]here [was] no way, in view of the lack of specificity of the petition, to determine whether the violations amounted to serious misconduct endangering the safety of passengers or employees of the flight department or otherwise involved a clear mandate of public policy.” Adolphsen, 907 S.W.2d at 338. “When the defendant’s actions are within a category not generally considered actionable (such as discharge of an at-will employee), the specific facts on which liability is based must be pleaded with particularity.” Id,.; see also Sivigliano v. Harrah’s N. Kansas City Corp., 188 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Mo.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, Frevert acknowledges that the
holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding that the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs petition because no legal provision let alone a clear mandate of public policy affirmatively appeals from the face of the plaintiffs petition holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available