Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jeanne Johnson 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
jeanne-johnson
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jeanne Johnson

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Jeanne Johnson vs. City of Kansas City, Missouri

Appellant

Jeanne Johnson sued the City of Kansas City for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), securing a jury verdict in her favor. The City appealed, raising four points concerning judicial estoppel, a refused verdict form, the submission of future economic losses, and the denial of remittitur. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in declining to apply judicial estoppel and no prejudice from the alleged instructional errors due to the application of a statutory damage cap. The court also sustained Johnson's motion for attorney's fees on appeal and remanded the case for their determination.