Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Gregory Kinsey, Defendant/Counterclaim- 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
gregory-kinsey-defendant/counterclaim
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Corporate 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Gregory Kinsey, Defendant/Counterclaim-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Gregory Kinsey appealed the trial court's dismissal of his counterclaim for attorney's fees against Russell Clark, which Kinsey sought based on a prevailing party provision in a Shareholders' Agreement. Kinsey argued he was entitled to fees after prevailing on summary judgment against Clark in a prior appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees because Kinsey failed to request them until after the appellate court's mandate had issued in the previous case.