Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DICK PORTON, AMY PORTON, and NATHAN ATCHISON 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
dick-porton-amy-porton-and-nathan-atchison
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DICK PORTON, AMY PORTON, and NATHAN ATCHISON

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Dick Porton, Amy Porton, and Nathan Atchison (Subdivision Owners) sued Keith and Sarah Box (Boxes) to establish a public road across the Boxes' property, which had been used by the public for nearly 30 years to access the Blue Ridge Estates Subdivision. The trial court found the road to be a public road by common-law dedication and, alternatively, by public prescriptive easement. The Boxes appealed, arguing errors in the common-law dedication finding, the burden-shifting for the prescriptive easement, and the inconsistency of the two theories. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in the Boxes' argument regarding the prescriptive easement and declining to address the other points.