St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

smith v humane socy of united states 519 sw3d 789

This authority appears in 9 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:smith-v-humane-socy-of-united-states-519-sw3d-789
Citation Sample
Smith v. Humane Soc'y of United States, 519 S.W.3d 789
Cases Shown
9
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LitigationReal EstateCriminal LawCorporate LawEmployment Law

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to smith v humane socy of united states 519 sw3d 789?

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

9

Cases Citing smith v humane socy of united states 519 sw3d 789

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

cited

Citation: Smith v. Humane Soc'y of United States, 519 S.W.3d 789

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.