Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

irvin v palmer 580 sw3d 15

This authority appears in 16 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:irvin-v-palmer-580-sw3d-15
Citation Sample
Irvin v. Palmer, 580 S.W.3d 15
Cases Shown
16
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to irvin v palmer 580 sw3d 15?

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.

Citation Treatment

cited

12

followed

4

Cases Citing irvin v palmer 580 sw3d 15

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026

Celestina Gamez, Respondent, v. EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, Appellant.

cited

Citation: Irvin v. Palmer, 580 S.W.3d 15

This Missouri appellate case addressed whether a company could set aside a default judgment that was entered against it more than one year earlier in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Celestina Gamez sued her former employer, EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, claiming violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. After EasyEx was properly served but failed to respond, the trial court entered a default judgment in March 2024 awarding Gamez damages and attorney's fees. EasyEx did not attempt to challenge this judgment until April 2025—over one year later—when Gamez began collection efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of EasyEx's motion to set aside the default judgment. Under Missouri Rule 74.05(d), parties seeking to overturn a default judgment must act "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment." The court rejected EasyEx's argument that the one-year deadline should run from when they received notice of the judgment rather than when it was entered, emphasizing that defaulting parties forfeit their right to notice under Missouri law. The court also awarded Gamez attorney's fees for defending the appeal, since she was the prevailing party under the Missouri Human Rights Act. This decision reinforces that Missouri's one-year deadline for challenging default judgments is strictly enforced and cannot be extended based on claims of lack of notice. For businesses and other litigants, this case underscores the critical importance of maintaining current contact information with registered agents and monitoring for potential lawsuits. Once a default judgment is entered, parties have limited time to act, and waiting until collection efforts begin is likely too late to seek relief from the court.