Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

David and Viola Stagner 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
david-and-viola-stagner
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 David and Viola Stagner

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

David and Viola Stagner appealed partial summary judgment rulings in favor of Wells Fargo, Select Portfolio Services, and Millsap & Singer in a wrongful foreclosure action. Millsap & Singer cross-appealed class certification rulings. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals, finding that none of the summary judgment rulings qualified as final judgments for appeal. The court held that the circuit court's attempts to certify certain rulings for interlocutory appeal under Rule 74.01(b) were improper because claims remained unresolved and were closely intertwined.