Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Dale Standfuss and Mary Lee Standfuss 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
dale-standfuss-and-mary-lee-standfuss
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Dale Standfuss and Mary Lee Standfuss

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 26, 2019

Ron Jones vs. Dale Standfuss and Mary Lee Standfuss

Respondent

Ron Jones petitioned for orders of protection against his neighbors, Dale and Mary Standfuss, alleging stalking. The circuit court granted full orders of protection in favor of Jones. On appeal, the Standfusses argued that Jones failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their actions caused him alarm as required by the Adult Abuse Act. The appellate court reversed and vacated both orders, finding that Jones did not establish an objective fear of physical harm from Dale, nor did he prove subjective or objective fear of physical harm from Mary.