Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Danielle DeLoatch 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
danielle-deloatch
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Danielle DeLoatch

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Oct 22, 2024

Danielle DeLoatch, Appellant, vs. St. Louis Public Schools, Respondent.

Appellant

Danielle Deloatch appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to vacate and for leave to amend her petition against St. Louis Public Schools, which alleged race and age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The trial court had previously dismissed her petition without prejudice. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Deloatch failed to preserve her argument regarding Rule 55.22(a) for appeal. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend, despite the effective prejudice of the dismissal due to the MHRA statute of limitations.