Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

IRVIN R. STACK and KATHY G. STACK 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
irvin-r-stack-and-kathy-g-stack
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 IRVIN R. STACK and KATHY G. STACK

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 20, 2021

IRVIN R. STACK and KATHY G. STACK, Appellants vs. J & A OUTDOORS, LLC, Respondent

Appellant

Irvin R. Stack and Kathy G. Stack appealed a judgment denying their suit to enjoin J & A Outdoors, LLC, a neighboring property owner, from hosting archery functions on its undeveloped land. The Stacks argued that the property was subject to restrictive covenants prohibiting commercial use. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the property affected by the restrictions was not sufficiently identified and that J & A Outdoors, as the sole owner of the restricted land, validly revoked the covenants.