St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Franklin County, Missouri, et al. 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
franklin-county-missouri-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Civil LitigationReal Estate

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Franklin County, Missouri, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 5, 2020

Kim Lynch, et al., Appellants, vs. Franklin County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Kim Lynch and Hootie's Rescue Haven appealed a circuit court judgment that upheld the Franklin County Board of Zoning Adjustment's decision. The Board had approved a conditional use permit for Meramec Aggregates, Inc. to operate a gravel mine. Appellants argued the Commission's voting procedure was unlawful and that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding the Commission's approval was valid and the Board's decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence.

Real EstateCivil Litigation