Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jeanette Layton 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
jeanette-layton
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jeanette Layton

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 18, 2024

Jeanette Layton, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents.

Appellant

Jeanette Layton sued Mercy Hospital East Communities and other entities, alleging age discrimination in employment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employers, finding them exempt from MHRA liability as corporations "owned or operated" by a religious organization. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employers were indeed operated by a religious organization as a matter of undisputed fact, and that the employers complied with Supreme Court Rule 74.04 regarding summary judgment procedures.