Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Cecelia Carlis Dickerson 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
cecelia-carlis-dickerson
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Cecelia Carlis Dickerson

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 28, 2019

Cecelia Carlis Dickerson, Respondent, vs. Charles Daniel Dickerson, Appellant.

Respondent

Charles Daniel Dickerson appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Cecelia Carlis Dickerson, challenging the awards for monthly maintenance, a property equalization payment, and attorney's fees. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the maintenance award, concluding it was supported by evidence of Wife's needs and Husband's ability to pay, including consideration of prospective expenses. It also upheld the property equalization payment as equitable and affirmed the attorney's fee award, noting Husband's greater financial resources and conduct during the proceedings.