Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Brad A. Keith 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
brad-a-keith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Brad A. Keith

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Sep 3, 2019

Airika Dawn Hibbs and James Hibbs vs. Brad A. Keith

Respondent

Airika and James Hibbs appealed a $500 sanction ordered by the circuit court, which stemmed from their failure to timely dismiss a negligence lawsuit against Brad Keith after a settlement. The Hibbses eventually dismissed their case with prejudice just 30 minutes before a scheduled hearing on Keith's motion to enforce the settlement, at which point Keith orally moved for sanctions. The appellate court reversed and vacated the sanctions order, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to impose sanctions because the underlying action had been voluntarily dismissed prior to the motion for sanctions being made. The court further clarified that Rule 67.05 did not apply as the motion was not pending at the time of dismissal.