Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CATHERINE SUE CLIPPARD 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
catherine-sue-clippard
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CATHERINE SUE CLIPPARD

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 25, 2022

MARK ALAN CLIPPARD, Respondent vs. CATHERINE SUE CLIPPARD, Appellant

Appellant

Catherine Sue Clippard (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying child support and education cost orders from her divorce decree with Mark Alan Clippard (Father). The appellate court reversed the child support modification, finding the trial court failed to make a statutorily required finding that the presumed child support amount was unjust or inappropriate. It also reversed the calculation of education costs, holding the trial court misapplied the law by using the incorrect income year for division. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the case was remanded with directions for further proceedings.