Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Beyond Housing, Inc. and Pagedale Town Center II 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
beyond-housing-inc-and-pagedale-town-center-ii
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Beyond Housing, Inc. and Pagedale Town Center II

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

The Director of Revenue appealed a decision by the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) that found Beyond Housing, Inc. and Pagedale Town Center II, LLC (PTC II) qualified for sales and use tax exemptions as charitable organizations. The Director argued that charitable and civic exemptions are mutually exclusive and that the organizations' Phase IV development was not a charitable activity. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the AHC's decision, holding that the statutory categories are not mutually exclusive and that the primary purpose of the Phase IV development was charitable, benefiting low-income individuals.