Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Danny Petifurd 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
danny-petifurd
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Danny Petifurd

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Danny Petifurd vs. Missouri Department of Corrections

Appellant

Danny Petifurd, a former employee, sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) for retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) after his termination. A jury found in favor of Petifurd, and the trial court denied DOC's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and awarded Petifurd attorneys' fees with a 1.5 multiplier. On appeal, the Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Petifurd presented a submissible case for retaliation and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the fee multiplier. The court also granted Petifurd's motion for appellate attorneys' fees and remanded the case for their determination.