Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al. 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
binational-gateway-terminal-llc-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Bi-National Gateway Terminal, LLC, and Ricardo Farias Nicolopulos appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Louis regarding the termination of a lease agreement. The central issue was whether the Director of Airports had the authority under Ordinance 70909 to unilaterally terminate the lease. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the merits of the Director's authority, finding the ordinance's plain language granted such power. However, the court dismissed Appellants' remaining points on appeal due to noncompliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.