Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

James Christopher Roberts 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
james-christopher-roberts
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 James Christopher Roberts

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Kimberly Lynn Roberts (Mother) appealed two trial court orders: one setting aside a default judgment against James Christopher Roberts (Father), and another granting Father's motion for unjust enrichment for overpaid child support. The appellate court dismissed Mother's appeal of the order setting aside the default judgment for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing. However, the court reversed the judgment for unjust enrichment, finding Father failed to prove Mother was unjustly enriched by child support payments used for the children's support. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.