Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

David L. Williams 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-l-williams
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 David L. Williams

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

David L. Williams sued St. Charles Auto Mart, Inc. d/b/a Auto Solutions under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, alleging the vehicle he purchased was modified and its extended warranty invalid. After a jury verdict for Auto Mart, the trial court granted Williams's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on liability and ordered a new trial on damages. Auto Mart appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting JNOV because it did not judicially admit elements of the MMPA claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Auto Mart failed to preserve its judicial admission arguments for appeal by not raising them in its Rule 72.01(b) filings or motion for new trial.