Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Bryant Holmes 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
bryant-holmes
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Bryant Holmes

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 20, 2024

Bryant Holmes vs. Missouri Department of Corrections

Appellant

Bryant Holmes sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging a hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Holmes, and the circuit court denied DOC's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On appeal, the DOC contended Holmes failed to present substantial evidence for two elements of his claim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Holmes was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on his sex and that the conduct was severe or pervasive. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees on appeal.