St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant- 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
arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentsCivil Litigation

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving ARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 12, 2023

CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant v ARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant-Respondent

Respondent

Charlotte Wright sued Arturo Marrufo Armijo for negligence following a car accident, seeking damages for both personal injuries and property damage. The trial court found in Wright's favor on her negligence claim but awarded only property damages, declining to award damages for personal injuries. On appeal, Wright argued the judgment was inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court was not required to believe Wright's uncontradicted testimony regarding her personal injuries and that her failure to prove these damages made the judgment consistent.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentsCivil Litigation