Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jeffery Pinnell 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
jeffery-pinnell
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jeffery Pinnell

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 14, 2019

Jeffery Pinnell, Appellant, vs. City of Union, Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Jeffery Pinnell sued the City of Union for personal injuries sustained after falling from a bridge headwall, alleging the City maintained the bridge in a dangerous condition. The trial court granted the City's motion for a directed verdict, finding Pinnell failed to make a submissible case for waiver of sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that Pinnell presented substantial evidence that the City's property was in a dangerous condition, thus precluding a directed verdict.