Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Francis Wolo 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
francis-wolo
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Francis Wolo

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 5, 2024

Francis Wolo, Respondent, vs. Christina Wolo, Appellant.

Respondent

In a marriage dissolution case, a default judgment was entered against Christina Wolo (Wife) after she failed to respond to Francis Wolo's (Husband) petition. Wife later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, claiming it was void due to defective service of process. The trial court denied her motion. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that Wife was estopped from challenging the service of process because she had previously filed and litigated a motion to modify the judgment without raising any issues regarding service or jurisdiction.