Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Crossroads Academy-Central Street 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
crossroads-academycentral-street
Cases Shown
1
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 Crossroads Academy-Central Street

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 8, 2020

G.B., J.B., and W.B., et al vs. Crossroads Academy-Central Street

Respondent

The Baker children were disenrolled from Crossroads Academy-Central Street because their parents refused to provide an original Department of Health and Senior Services' Form 11 for religious exemption from vaccination. The Bakers appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition, which sought a trial de novo or other administrative review, arguing the school's decision was unlawful and unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the right to a trial de novo under section 167.161 applies only to disciplinary actions, not to disenrollment for non-compliance with immunization requirements, and that other claims were precluded by claim splitting or unpreserved constitutional issues.