Missouri Case Party

City of Chillicothe and Rick Knouse 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: city-of-chillicothe-and-rick-knouse
Cases Shown: 1
Top Practice Route: Civil Litigation

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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Civil Litigation

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 City of Chillicothe and Rick Knouse

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Feb 13, 2019

Steve Cox vs. City of Chillicothe and Rick Knouse

Respondent

Steve Cox, the Livingston County Sheriff, sued the City of Chillicothe and its Chief of Police, Rick Knouse, alleging violations of Missouri's Sunshine Law for disclosing a 911 recording. The Sheriff sought damages under sections 610.150 and 610.100.2, arguing these were incorporated into section 610.021, allowing recovery under section 610.027. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendants, holding that section 610.027 does not provide a civil remedy for the improper disclosure of records under sections 610.150 or 610.100.2.

Civil Litigation