Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Diane Ware, et al. 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
diane-ware-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Diane Ware, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Ida Catherine Adams, who held a life estate in a property, appealed the trial court's denial of her unlawful detainer petition against Diane Ware and others (Respondents). The trial court had found Adams' action barred by a three-year statute of limitations and that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between Adams and Respondents. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for unlawful detainer begins to run upon written demand for possession, which Adams made within the statutory period. The court affirmed that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion.