Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Greg Stiens 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
greg-stiens
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Greg Stiens

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 14, 2018

The Finkle-Rowlett Revocable Trust Dated August 28, 2009 vs. Greg Stiens

Respondent

Greg Stiens, a beneficiary of the Finkle-Rowlett Revocable Trust, challenged the validity of the Trust's Second Amendment, alleging the settlor lacked testamentary capacity. The probate court found Stiens violated a no-contest clause by pursuing his challenge, forfeited his interest, and thus lacked standing to proceed, dismissing his claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that the probate court erred by assuming the validity of the Second Amendment and its no-contest clause without first resolving the issue of the settlor's testamentary capacity.