Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Fidelity Real Estate Company 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
fidelity-real-estate-company
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Fidelity Real Estate Company

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 5, 2019

Fidelity Real Estate Company vs. Joyce E. Norman and Marsha L. Eaton

Appellant

Joyce Norman and Marsha Eaton (Tenants) appealed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Fidelity Real Estate Company (Landlord) in a contract action arising from a landlord/tenant relationship. Tenants argued that summary judgment was improperly granted due to inconsistencies in Landlord's exhibits and that the award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest via a nunc pro tunc order was improper. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the "nunc pro tunc" order was an amended judgment the trial court had jurisdiction to issue, and that summary judgment was proper because a prior case relied upon by Tenants was wrongly decided under the current summary judgment rules, and Tenants' response was ineffective.