St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daniel Wieland 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
daniel-wieland
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Family LawCriminal LawCivil Litigation

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 Daniel Wieland

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jun 12, 2018

Patrick M. Davis, Mandee Rowen Pingel and Davis/Pingel & Associates vs. Daniel Wieland

Respondent

Attorneys Patrick Michael Davis, Mandee Rowen Pingel, and their firm appealed a $100,000 sanctions judgment imposed in a child custody modification case. This was the second appeal concerning sanctions against the attorneys for various instances of bad-faith conduct, including abusive pleadings and improper contact with expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the sanctions judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination of bad faith and rejecting the attorneys' arguments regarding procedural protections and the nature of the sanctions.

Criminal LawFamily LawCivil Litigation