Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

City of Grandview 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-grandview
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 City of Grandview

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Apr 21, 2020

JTC Oil Company, Inc., et al vs. City of Grandview

Respondent

JTC Oil Company, Inc. and Jerry Kerr appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Grandview. The underlying dispute involved the City's denial of JTC's application to install oil wells, which JTC and Kerr claimed constituted inverse condemnation. The trial court found their oil and gas lease had terminated due to non-production, thus negating a valuable property right. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the City, though a non-party, could challenge the lease's validity as a defense, but found a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding lease termination due to misinterpretation of "production" versus "sales" and failure to consider the temporary cessation of production doctrine or abandonment.