St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daryl Duncan 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
daryl-duncan
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Personal InjuryCivil 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 Daryl Duncan

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Daryl Duncan sued his former attorneys, Michael C. Dempsey and his firm, for legal malpractice, alleging they failed to secure collateral for a promissory note in a business transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment for Dempsey, finding Duncan failed to present expert testimony on negligence and causation. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that expert testimony was required for Duncan's professional negligence claim and that Duncan failed to properly request a continuance for discovery under Rule 74.04(f).

Personal InjuryCivil Litigation