Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

AMANDA E. BALDON, Respondent- 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
amanda-e-baldon-respondent
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 AMANDA E. BALDON, Respondent-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 3, 2020

TIMOTHY J. BALDON, Petitioner-Respondent v. AMANDA E. BALDON, Respondent-Appellant

Appellant

Amanda E. Baldon appealed a judgment granting grandparent visitation rights to her son's paternal grandfather, Timothy J. Baldon, following the death of her husband. Mother claimed she did not deny Grandfather reasonable visitation for a period exceeding 90 days, a statutory prerequisite for such an order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the 90-day denial must occur before a visitation order is entered, not before the petition is filed. The court further found that the trial court's determination that Mother unreasonably denied visitation for over 90 days was supported by substantial evidence, deferring to the trial court's credibility findings regarding Mother's pretextual reasons.