St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

City of University City, et al. 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-university-city-et-al
Cases Shown
4
Top Practice Route
Criminal 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawPersonal InjuryCivil Litigation

Cases Involving City of University City, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Aug 22, 2023

Thomas Sullivan, et al., Appellants, vs. City of University City, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Thomas Sullivan and David Harris, taxpayers in University City, sued the City and its officials, seeking a declaratory judgment that public funds were improperly used to advocate for a ballot measure, Proposition F, in violation of section 115.646. The trial court dismissed their petition with prejudice. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that section 115.646 does not provide a private cause of action for taxpayers, and therefore, any amendment to the petition would be futile, justifying the dismissal with prejudice.

Personal InjuryCivil Litigation