Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Christopher Gebhardt 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
christopher-gebhardt
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Christopher Gebhardt

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 9, 2021

Christopher Gebhardt vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc, et al

Appellant

Christopher Gebhardt sued American Honda Motor Company and Honda of South Carolina Manufacturing, alleging strict product liability and negligence after his ATV suddenly accelerated and flipped. The trial court excluded Gebhardt's expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Blundell, finding his opinions unreliable under section 490.065, RSMo, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Honda. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony due to an analytical gap in his methodology and speculative foundation. Consequently, summary judgment was proper given the lack of sufficient evidence to support Gebhardt's claims.