St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DENNIS R. RYNO 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
dennis-r-ryno
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Civil LitigationEmployment Law

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 Litigation ConsultationCall About A Litigation Claim

Cases Involving DENNIS R. RYNO

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 27, 2022

DENNIS R. RYNO, Appellant vs. KEVIN S. HILLMAN, Respondent

Appellant

Dennis R. Ryno sued Kevin S. Hillman, a prosecuting attorney, alleging unauthorized disclosures of Ryno's closed law enforcement records to the Department of the Army, which led to Ryno's federal employment termination. The trial court dismissed all Ryno's claims for damages, finding a failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the relevant statute does not create a private cause of action for damages and that Ryno failed to plead essential elements for his claims of unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion and prima facie tort.

Civil LitigationEmployment Law