St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY 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
curtis-whitlow-twajana-moss-and-tammy-henry
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Real EstateCivil LitigationCorporate Law

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving CURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 15, 2025

JANETTE WHITLOW, Appellant v. CURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY, Respondents

Respondent

Janette Whitlow sued Curtis Whitlow, Twajana Moss, and Tammy Henry for unjust enrichment, alleging they were enriched by her contributions to the acquisition of a family farm. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondents, concluding Whitlow's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the respondents failed to properly plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer as required by Rule 55.08.

Real EstateCorporate LawCivil Litigation