Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Don F. Eberhardt 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
don-f-eberhardt
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 Don F. Eberhardt

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Aug 25, 2020

Don F. Eberhardt, Appellant, vs. Aura M. Hagemann Eberhardt, Respondent.

Appellant

Don F. Eberhardt appealed pro se from the trial court's dismissal of his petition against Aura M. Hagemann Eberhardt, which alleged claims including fraud, perjury, and bigamy, and sought annulment and damages. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim and on res judicata grounds. The appellate court, however, did not reach the merits of the underlying claims. Instead, it dismissed the appeal because Appellant's brief substantially failed to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, preserving nothing for review.