Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Emir Ramushi 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
emir-ramushi
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Insurance Bad Faith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Emir Ramushi

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 20, 2023

Barbara S. Thomas, Appellant, vs. Emir Ramushi, Respondent.

Respondent

Barbara S. Thomas sued Emir Ramushi for damages after a car accident where Ramushi admitted full liability. The trial court awarded Thomas $375.45 but allowed Ramushi a credit/set-off for $3,690.50, representing a payment from Ramushi's insurer (AAA) to Thomas's insurer (Liberty Mutual) for vehicle damage. The appellate court reversed, holding that Liberty Mutual lacked authority to settle Thomas's claims without her consent, and that allowing the credit violated the collateral source rule by impermissibly relying on evidence of payments from a collateral source.