Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DAVID LYNN SCOTT and DONNA SCOTT, Plaintiffs- 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-lynn-scott-and-donna-scott-plaintiffs
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LYNN SCOTT and DONNA SCOTT, Plaintiffs-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

David Lynn and Donna Scott appealed the trial court's judgment granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of Richard and Jan Hicks. The Scotts had claimed adverse possession of approximately 314 acres of land, and a jury initially found in their favor. The appellate court affirmed the JNOV, concluding that the Scotts failed to present substantial evidence to support the 'hostile' element of their adverse possession claim, as their actions consistently recognized the record owner's superior title.