Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Darryl Olive 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
darryl-olive
Cases Shown
1
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 Darryl Olive

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / May 28, 2024

Shawn Bitters vs. Darryl Olive

Respondent

Darryl Olive appealed the dissolution of his marriage to Shawn Bitters, challenging the trial court's decision to grant his counsel's motion to withdraw, the award of attorney's fees to Bitters, and the denial of maintenance to Olive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow counsel to withdraw and the award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the denial of maintenance, concluding that the trial court's finding that Olive had not requested maintenance was unsupported by substantial evidence, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.