Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Grain Belt Express, L.L.C. 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
grain-belt-express-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Grain Belt Express, L.L.C.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 15, 2024

Grain Belt Express, L.L.C. vs. Chariton County, Missouri

Appellant

Grain Belt Express, L.L.C., an electrical corporation, sought a declaratory judgment against Chariton County after the County refused to grant assent for the construction of overhead transmission lines on public roads, despite MPSC approval. The circuit court ruled that Section 49.650.4 prohibited the County from regulating Grain Belt's construction. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that Section 49.650.4 does not implicitly repeal Section 229.100. The County must grant assent for the *manner* of construction to ensure road safety, but cannot withhold assent to prevent the MPSC-approved project.