Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

AMBER WOLFE, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the April 4, 2011 Restatement of Revocable Trust Agreement of Rosetta Keen, and CYNTHIA KEEN 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
amber-wolfe-individually-and-in-her-capacity-as-trustee-of-the-april-4-2011-restatement-of-revocable-trust-agreement-of-rosetta-keen-and-cynthia-keen
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 AMBER WOLFE, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the April 4, 2011 Restatement of Revocable Trust Agreement of Rosetta Keen, and CYNTHIA KEEN

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Louie Keen, a trust beneficiary, appealed the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment on a petition seeking a determination of the applicability of a trust's no-contest clause under the "safe harbor" provision of § 456.4-420.1. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment on a safe harbor petition is not an "order or judgment determining a petition" as required for appeal under § 456.4-420.3, because such a denial means the issue remains pending and undetermined.