Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

David Woody 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-woody
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Woody

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 14, 2025

David Woody vs. Patrick Clark, Jay Bettis, & Richard Riddell

Appellant

David Woody, an elected County Clerk and member of the Missouri National Guard, sued the County Commission after it limited his salary payment to 120 hours per federal fiscal year during his 400-day active federal military deployment. Woody argued he was entitled to full salary under § 41.942.1, while the Commission relied on § 105.270.1. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Commission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that § 41.942.1 preserves a deployed Guard member's compensation rate and terms ("pay status"), but not the right to continued salary payment during extended federal deployment.