St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

houston v crider 317 sw3d 178

This authority appears in 190 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:houston-v-crider-317-sw3d-178
Citation Sample
Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178
Cases Shown
50
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to cases citing this authority

These links route legal-research traffic from this authority profile into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the authority itself or the cited cases map to a practical client issue.

Civil LitigationFamily LawReal EstateCorporate LawCriminal LawEmployment Law

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to houston v crider 317 sw3d 178?

This authority profile is public case-law research. If the authority connects to your claim or dispute, Ott Law Firm can help evaluate evidence, deadlines, and next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Citation Treatment

cited

166

followed

24

Cases Citing houston v crider 317 sw3d 178

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.

cited

Citation: Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

Family LawCivil Litigation