Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DAVID MCCRACKEN, BRADLEY FIENEN, and ROBERT VAUGHAN, Defendants- 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-mccracken-bradley-fienen-and-robert-vaughan-defendants
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawCivil 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 Criminal Law ConsultationCall About A Criminal Law Claim

Cases Involving DAVID MCCRACKEN, BRADLEY FIENEN, and ROBERT VAUGHAN, Defendants-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Louis A. Hardison sued state and county officials for alleged violations of Missouri's Criminal Asset Forfeiture Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The trial court denied Hardison's motion for summary judgment and granted the officials' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The appellate court dismissed Hardison's consolidated appeals, holding that the denial of summary judgment was not an appealable order and that Hardison's brief was replete with violations of Rule 84.04, preventing impartial review.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation