Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Board of Zoning Adjustment, Platte County, Missouri and CKC Holdings, LLC. 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
board-of-zoning-adjustment-platte-county-missouri-and-ckc-holdings-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Board of Zoning Adjustment, Platte County, Missouri and CKC Holdings, LLC.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Laurie Lewis and other neighboring property owners appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the Platte County Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) decision to grant CKC Holdings, LLC a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a self-storage facility. Appellants argued the BZA erred because the proposed special use was contrary to law, failing to meet Zoning Order standards, and was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case due to prior denials. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the BZA had discretionary authority to grant the SUP and that the preclusion doctrines did not apply given significant changes in the current application.