Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Acoma Development, LLC, et al. 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
acoma-development-llc-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Acoma Development, LLC, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Acoma Development, LLC, et al. vs. Commerce Tower Place, et al.

Appellant

Acoma Development, LLC and Michael Knight appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of multiple defendants in a lawsuit seeking a percentage of net proceeds from a settlement of HVAC claims. The appellants argued the trial court erred by not granting a continuance for discovery to determine if attorney's fees, which fully offset the gross settlement proceeds, were actually paid. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance and noting Knight had no right to proceeds. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine and award the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees on appeal.