Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CITY OF OSAGE BEACH 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-osage-beach
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 OSAGE BEACH

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

The City of Osage Beach sought a declaration that a sewer services agreement with Duenke Real Estate Holdings, LLC and Tan-Tar-A Estates, LLC was terminated due to breach. After a default judgment was entered against the LLCs, the circuit court granted their motion to set aside the default judgment and allowed the Tan-Tar-A Estates Community Association, Inc. to intervene. The City appealed, challenging the circuit court's findings of a meritorious defense and good cause. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment.