Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

City of St. Louis, MO 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-st-louis-mo
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 St. Louis, MO

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 5, 2024

Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, MO, Respondent.

Respondent

Double AA Market, LLC, sought a conditional use permit for a convenience store, which was denied by the City of St. Louis Board of Adjustment. Double AA then filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the City's alleged practice of "aldermanic courtesy" as unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, concluding that a writ of certiorari under Section 89.110 was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an adequate remedy at law was available through certiorari, thus precluding the declaratory judgment action.