Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Impact Agape Ministries, 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
impact-agape-ministries-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Insurance Bad Faith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Impact Agape Ministries, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 6, 2023

David L. Jones, Appellant, vs. Impact Agape Ministries, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Mr. David Lee Jones, a professional musician, appealed the small claims court's judgment in favor of Impact Agape Ministries and its pastors on his breach of contract claim for unpaid music services. The small claims court had entered judgment for the church after a trial de novo. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr. Jones's brief failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04, thereby preserving nothing for appellate review.