Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Clarksboro, LLC and WMAC 2013, LLC 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
clarksboro-llc-and-wmac-2013-llc
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Clarksboro, LLC and WMAC 2013, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Clarksboro, LLC and WMAC 2013, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Overland, Missouri, which sought to demolish their building for code violations. The appellants had sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing the City accepted abatement of violations via a plea agreement and that the demolition order was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that appellants waived their arguments by failing to appear at the administrative hearing and by failing to timely file a petition for judicial review, which deprived the circuit court of statutory authority. The court also found that injunctive and declaratory relief was not available and that res judicata/collateral estoppel did not apply.