Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

3018 Pershall, LLC Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
3018-pershall-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving 3018 Pershall, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 20, 2025

3018 Pershall, LLC, Appellant, v. Outfront Media, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Appellant

Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC, which acquired a commercial property via a tax sale, sued Respondents Landmark and Outfront Media for declaratory judgment and to quiet title, asserting that their easement and billboard interest did not survive the tax sale. The trial court found for Respondents, holding their interests were valid and survived the sale. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Landmark held a valid easement not void for public policy and that Appellant failed to rebut evidence of proper notice to Respondents.