Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Dean A. Smith 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
dean-a-smith
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Dean A. Smith

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 30, 2021

Vicki J. Smith, Appellant, v. Dean A. Smith, Respondent.

Respondent

Vicki J. Smith (Wife) appealed a judgment in favor of Dean A. Smith (Husband) on his claim for equitable relief, which had relieved him of a credit card debt obligation and ordered Wife to pay damages and attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Husband's claim was barred by res judicata. The court found that a prior dismissal, though without prejudice, constituted a determination on the merits of the same substantial facts, and the extrinsic fraud exception did not apply because Wife's alleged concealment was intrinsic fraud and Husband failed to show an absence of fault.