Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Gina Kalish 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
gina-kalish
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Gina Kalish

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 17, 2023

Gina Kalish, Respondent, vs. James Kalish, Appellant.

Respondent

James Kalish (Husband) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a 2014 order nunc pro tunc. The 2014 order purported to correct a 2013 divorce judgment by granting Gina Kalish (Wife) the entire pension instead of half. The appellate court agreed that the 2014 order was an improper modification of a final judgment, not a mere clerical error. However, the court affirmed the denial of Husband's motion because his six-year delay in filing the motion was not within a "reasonable time" as required by Rule 74.06(c).