Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Dimple "Denise" Kelly 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
dimple-denise-kelly
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Dimple "Denise" Kelly

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

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

Dimple "Denise" Kelly vs. City of Lee's Summit, Missouri

Appellant

Dimple Kelly sued the City of Lee's Summit for wrongful termination under the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging racial, age, and sex/gender discrimination. The trial court entered judgment for the City after a jury trial. On appeal, Kelly argued that the trial court erred by overruling her objection to the City's modified lawful justification jury instruction (MAI 38.02). The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that the instruction impermissibly modified MAI 38.02 by failing to hypothesize a lawful reason for termination and removing mandatory causation language, thereby prejudicing Kelly.