Missouri Case Party

Cameron Thomson and Honest Policy, Inc. 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: cameron-thomson-and-honest-policy-inc
Cases Shown: 1
Top Practice Route: Corporate 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Corporate Law Civil Litigation Estate Planning

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.

Free Consultation Call Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Cameron Thomson and Honest Policy, Inc.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 6, 2019

Joseph Wagner Revocable Trust U/A vs. Cameron Thomson and Honest Policy, Inc.

Respondent

Joseph F. Wagner, Jr. Revocable Trust sued Cameron Colby Thomson and Honest Policy, Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment regarding a $100,000 loan. The trial court entered judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of the Trust. On appeal, Appellants argued the court erred by submitting mutually exclusive theories of recovery and by giving conjunctive instructions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the theories were not mutually exclusive given the disputed facts, and that the other instructional errors were not preserved or were waived.

Corporate Law Civil Litigation Estate Planning