Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Debbie M. Earley 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
debbie-m-earley
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Debbie M. Earley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 21, 2023

Debbie M. Earley, Appellant, v. Mary V. Dunn, Respondent.

Appellant

Debbie Earley, an in-home caregiver, sued her employer, Mary Dunn, for negligence after being sexually assaulted by Dunn's grandson in Dunn's home. Earley argued that the employer-employee relationship created a duty for Dunn to protect her from third-party criminal acts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dunn, finding no such duty. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employer-employee relationship alone does not constitute a special relationship giving rise to a duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party criminal acts, and that prior statements to the contrary were dictum.