Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Andrew Wilkinson 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
andrew-wilkinson
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Andrew Wilkinson

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jul 16, 2024

Andrew Wilkinson, Respondent, vs. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., Appellant.

Respondent

Andrew Wilkinson sued Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. for products liability after a pneumatic stapler manufactured by Stanley fired and struck him in the eye, leading to its surgical removal. The trial court entered judgment following a jury verdict for Wilkinson, awarding $11 million in noneconomic damages. Stanley appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson's counsel repeatedly referred to Stanley as a "billion-dollar company" in violation of an order in limine. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court abused its discretion because the improper statements were not cured and prejudiced the outcome, as evidenced by the large verdict.